Gravity Waves

Posted by: pokey

Gravity Waves - 01/13/16 09:27 PM

Gizmodo:

"Excited rumors began circulating on Twitter this morning that a major experiment designed to hunt for gravitational waves—ripples in the fabric of spacetime first predicted by Albert Einstein—has observed them directly for the very first time. If confirmed, this would be one of the most significant physics discoveries of the last century."

[Alan Weinstein, who heads the LIGO group at Caltech, had this to say via email: “My response to you is no more or less than the official one, which is the truth: ‘We are analyzing 01 data and will share news when ready.’ I’d say that it is wisest to just be patient.”]
Posted by: Orac

Re: Gravity Waves - 01/14/16 03:20 AM

This needs extreme care before getting to excited.

Yes we are all expecting to see gravity waves and due to that, the experiment has a testing protocol.

The full rumour is they saw the predicted chirp of two black holes merging. Such an observation means not only direct observation of gravity waves but direct evidence of black holes and the ability to merge
http://phys.org/news/2015-09-black-holes-collide.html

However good scientists are wary they don't fool themselves.

Originally Posted By: http://www.nature.com/news/has-giant-ligo-experiment-seen-gravitational-waves-1.18449
A team of three collaboration members has the ability to simulate a detection by using actuators to move the mirrors. “Only they know if, and when, a certain type of signal has been injected,” says Laura Cadonati, a physicist at the Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta who leads the Advanced LIGO’s data-analysis team.

Two such exercises took place during earlier science runs of LIGO, one in 2007 and one in 2010. Harry Collins, a sociologist of science at Cardiff University, UK, was there to document them (and has written books about it1). He says that the exercises can be valuable for rehearsing the analysis techniques that will be needed when a real event occurs. But the practice can also be a drain on the team’s energies. “Analysing one of these events can be enormously time consuming,” he says. “At some point, it damages their home life.”

The original blind-injection exercises took 18 months and 6 months respectively. The first one was discarded, but in the second case, the collaboration wrote a paper and held a vote to decide whether they would make an announcement. Only then did the blind-injection team ‘open the envelope’ and reveal that the events had been staged.

Whoever tweeted it broke protocol because this could be nothing more than a test. As you can see the analysis will take a couple of months before even the staff are told if it was a test or not.

This is one of those experiments where there is no easy background test open to it so "blind injection" protocol.

The result being in the category almost too good to believe has many guessing it was a test. However it will be massive if the result rumour is correct.

Watching all the crackpots either deny such a result or try to invent some reason their theory predicted it will be funny. Even on this forum there will be a couple with explaining to do smile
Posted by: paul

Re: Gravity Waves - 01/14/16 11:29 PM

I don't see any reason for the excitement myself.

personally I don't think gravity has waves , there may have
been a wave generated for some undisclosed reason , but I
have always considered that gravity has a field and does not
travel much like a magnetic field.

its field may be increased or decreased by the amount of mass that makes up the field , so at that point of increase or decrease of mass the field intensity would move outwards or inwards but it shouldn't move like a wave moves.

more like a intensity increase or decrease at any given point
along the radius of the field.



Posted by: Bill

Re: Gravity Waves - 01/14/16 11:41 PM

Originally Posted By: paul
its field may be increased or decreased by the amount of mass that makes up the field , so at that point of increase or decrease of mass the field intensity would move outwards or inwards but it shouldn't move like a wave moves.

more like a intensity increase or decrease at any given point
along the radius of the field.





An increase or decrease in a field? Isn't that pretty much the definition of a wave?

Bill Gill
Posted by: paul

Re: Gravity Waves - 01/14/16 11:55 PM

your thinking about the intensity of a wave that moves like
a sound wave or light wave or a ocean wave.

Im saying that gravity does not have waves and does not
move , its like a magnetic field.


Posted by: Orac

Re: Gravity Waves - 01/15/16 04:05 AM

Originally Posted By: Bill
An increase or decrease in a field? Isn't that pretty much the definition of a wave?

You are technically correct but because its such a slow rate and hence a very low frequency we tend not to call it a wave and a layman never would.

For example the earths magnetic field is weakening, you will find many articles on it. However none will describe it as a wave.

Technically the magnetic field itself is also composed of localized EM waves but again that is simply playing with descriptions as it is clear Paul is talking about field strength variation over time like the earth field variation.

I guess in the same way, a sound is made of waves but it may get louder or softer. We don't describe that as a wave just simply louder or softer sound.

For Paul you question is, if they find gravity waves does that mean your physics is wrong. You seem pretty adamant they won't find them. If they find one, they will will find a lot just based on the size of the universe (I think the predicted rate is around 1 per month, it may even be higher not my area).

For Pokey I read this in your link
Quote:
"Caveat earlier mentioned: they have engineering runs with blind signals inserted that mimic discoveries. Am told this isn't one," Krauss tweeted.

This guy sounds like a dipstick, as per the previous tests no-one in the team would know that. If the blind testing protocol was broken then the whole result comes into doubt and the "blind test" officers would be instantly sacked. Those test officers will no doubt be admin staff not involved in the analysis teams. There will be some questions asked by the LIGO team who Krauss has been speaking too because he is undermining the whole blind protocol. The protocol is well established in detail here (http://www.ligo.org/news/blind-injection.php).

Quote:
The Blind Injection Envelope was opened on March 14, 2011 at a joint meeting of the LIGO Scientific Collaboration and the Virgo Collaboration in Arcadia, CA. There were 300 people in the room and another 100 connecting through a video teleconference.

Krauss is implying someone has already opened the letter before the analysis is complete ... a serious NO NO. I seriously doubt anyone in the analysis team even has access to the letter and so I think Krauss is full of it.
Posted by: Orac

Re: Gravity Waves - 01/18/16 06:55 AM

AR2 care to delete the above from Marosz, we are showing a glimmer of hope by insisting Marosz post just one image and then write about it.

Marosz: nobody understands that group of drawings, it's just a pile of unrelated things. The airplane wing was in a discussion on time and now here it is about gravity waves?. Are you are saying airplane wings make gravity waves that travel backwards/forwards in time?

Just posting more and more images wont help us, and everyone ends up just ignoring you. Then they start asking AR2 to delete the drawing spam because it's length interrupts the thread.
Posted by: Orac

Re: Gravity Waves - 01/19/16 01:38 PM

So planes fly underwater but their propellers cavitate because of force Va, and the metal bars pit because of EM waves and pressure?

That is what those children drawings seem to indicate.

Apparently now we aren't allowed to talk about time now even when you use the same drawing.

Marosz, all that makes absolutely no sense to anyone but you, it's just a bunch of unrelated things. All I get is completely confused.

More and more drawings isn't helping, you have been told that by many many people. Try one drawing and write about it.

Marosz do you know what ONE DRAWING means?
Posted by: paul

Re: Gravity Waves - 01/20/16 02:54 PM

Quote:
For Paul you question is, if they find gravity waves does that mean your physics is wrong.


they wont find waves of gravity , there may have been some
slight wave produced for some undisclosed reason but gravity
is due only to mass and its density
. <---( PERIOD )

look at the planet Mercury.

Mercury surface area is 0.147 earths.
Mercury mass is 0.055 earths
Mercury density is 5.427 g/cm^3

Mercury gravity is 3.7 ms^2 vs earths 9.8 ms^2

earths density is 5.514 g/cm^3

gravity is not due to the space that surrounds a planet
even if the pictures and illusions seem to point in that
direction.

else the planet Mercury would have a gravity field much
weaker than the 3.7 ms^2 because of the volume of space
that it occupies.

Quote:

You seem pretty adamant they won't find them.


Yes, I am.

Quote:

If they find one, they will will find a lot just based on the size of the universe (I think the predicted rate is around 1 per month, it may even be higher not my area).


they may find loads of things that seem to be a wave of
gravity , that does not equate to those things being waves
of gravity just because they name them gravity waves , and
with all the false doctrine that is constantly being applied
to prop up the magician and his theories I highly doubt
that many in actual science will see these newly thought
up things as anything more than more lies , illusion
and parlor tricks coming from the illusion of the magicians supportive foundation.

of course there will be those who must suck butt against
their better judgement if they still have any in order
to retain their position within the modern (puke) science
community.

mass and its density does not fluctuate the way that light
and sound fluctuates.

with no fluctuations in mass or its density there can be
no fluctuations in gravity and therefore no gravity waves.

Posted by: Orac

Re: Gravity Waves - 01/21/16 02:17 AM

Paul, that is all fine I understand your belief and position.

You have however sort of backed yourself into a corner. So if they do find Gravity waves will you re-evaluate your beliefs, or are you going to go for a giant science conspiracy path?

However just a side note, there is no point discussing things like a planets gravity both GR and Classical physics predict EXACTLY the same answer. This is a throw back to the Space Station problem .. either framework gives the same answer. It is only worth discussing situations in which GR and classical physics predict different things. The whole example with Mercury given above is a waste of time, it can't settle the argument.
Posted by: Orac

Re: Gravity Waves - 01/21/16 11:06 PM

You could be in trouble Paul the physics rumour mill has gone into over-drive that LIGO has seen another event. That would be about right as it was predicted it would see roughly one event a month. A release date of February 11th has been suggested for the first event and the rumour still persists that it is indeed a two black hole merger.

So if announced as indicated how do you intend to deal with it?

For science the result would not be on the same scale as say the Higgs discovery as the gravity waves have already been already largely detected by indirect means. Really all it does is put numbers to the direct measured behaviour of the waves which will help with full theories of gravity.

For crackpots, anti-relativity and anti-Einstein crowd however they will be looking for the excuses smile

Krauss has taken some blowback for his first up rumor-mongering with most complaining he is damaging scientific credibility by undermining the blind injection process. As I suspected no one in the analysis team knows if the event is a test or not, so his tweet that it wasn't a test is complete BS.
Posted by: paul

Re: Gravity Waves - 01/22/16 01:18 PM

Quote:
So if announced as indicated how do you intend to deal with it?


if two black holes merge then that would cause a merger of
the two gravity fields of the two black holes.

that would increase the intensity of the resultant gravity
field and that increase is a one time event not a wave that
is anything like a light wave or sound wave.

and the increase of a gravity field shouldn't be called
a wave at all.

wave your hand , notice there is an repeated up and down motion in a wave.

you have no down motion to complete the first oscillation of
a wave you only have the increase / up motion.

if this is reported as a wave then it will not affect my
brand of physics and I will deal with it the same way I
have dealt with modern science , I will consider it some
prop job to pacify some person not science.

are they even certain that it is a merger of two black holes?

and not a merger of two atoms that have had their electrons
stripped away or two atoms whose electrons have been drained of energy and have collapsed and orbit really close to the nucleus.

if the proposed gravity waves increase in magnitude as they are seen over time it might not be that these are isolated events but a reoccurring event that is feeding
on a unknown food source.

if so then at that point it may be necessary to build a spaceship for it and send it chasing the voyagers as slow as possible.

Posted by: Orac

Re: Gravity Waves - 01/23/16 03:41 AM

So now all you need to do is what they have done, show the mathematics of your waves, frequency and amplitude relative to black hole masses ... please smile

Get in early like they did show the working before the observation.

Now while you are at that can you show how a black hole forms under your physics, I mean a black hole is a creation of GR and only predicted by GR.
Posted by: Bill

Re: Gravity Waves - 01/23/16 02:21 PM

Originally Posted By: Orac
I mean a black hole is a creation of GR and only predicted by GR.

That isn't 100% true. There had been speculation about light not being able to escape from extremely massive stars under Newton's gravitational theory. I don't think anybody gave much heed to the idea, but it had been suggested.

Wiki:Dark star (Newtonian mechanics)

As pointed out in the article it does not involve the actual collapse of the star so you are mostly correct.

Bill Gill
Posted by: paul

Re: Gravity Waves - 01/23/16 04:24 PM

Quote:
So now all you need to do is what they have done, show the mathematics of your waves, frequency and amplitude relative to black hole masses ... please smile


why would it have to come from two black holes , I asked you
if they were certain if it was black holes and you then asked
another question without answering.

Quote:
Now while you are at that can you show how a black hole forms under your physics,


...

Quote:

I mean a black hole is a creation of GR and only predicted by GR.


a creation of gr?

So illusion gives birth to more illusion.

I guess the illusions would be generally related.
Posted by: Orac

Re: Gravity Waves - 01/24/16 12:59 AM

Originally Posted By: paul
why would it have to come from two black holes , I asked you if they were certain if it was black holes and you then asked another question without answering.

They would be certain because they have calculated the frequency an amplitudes that you would see if black holes exist and they merged

layman discussion: http://www.ligo.org/science/GW-Inspiral.php

So the odds of you seeing a random gravity wave matching the prediction are high enough as is. Then they will track the wave back to the binary star system creating it. It will continue to make the chirp on a repeat rate based on the binary star revolution rate, allowing you to do even more checking.

So they will be more than a bit certain.

Quote:
a creation of gr?

Yes Newtonian physics doesn't predict black holes it predicts a different beast all together which Bill G gave the link to.

I can't speak for Paul physics so was curious how this all worked for your physics.
Posted by: paul

Re: Gravity Waves - 01/25/16 06:32 PM

Quote:
They would be certain because they have calculated the frequency and amplitude that you would see if black holes exist and they merged


then you follow with this...

Quote:
Then they will track the wave back to the binary star system creating it. It will continue to make the chirp on a repeat rate based on the binary star revolution rate


that's still not a wave , just increasing and decreasing due to the gravity of
the two stars causing a fluctuation in the gravity field of the binary system ...

neither stars gravity would fluctuate but because of the rotation there would be a fluctuation observed from outside the binary system.

think of it as a planetary alignment in our solar system ...

Posted by: Orac

Re: Gravity Waves - 01/26/16 01:02 AM

Originally Posted By: paul
that's still not a wave , just increasing and decreasing due to the gravity of the two stars causing a fluctuation in the gravity field of the binary system ...

neither stars gravity would fluctuate but because of the rotation there would be a fluctuation observed from outside the binary system.

think of it as a planetary alignment in our solar system

Now you are doing what Bill G did to you with waves. Yes technically that is a wave but we tend to call them orbital resonances. It does get frustrating using these stupid layman terms which have such wide meaning.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_resonance

Using your layman concepts that effect would be felt as a change in the local value of gravity here and you describe it as such. LIGO measures the expansion and contraction between two fixed points on earth. That sort of effect you are describing would just role thru the detector sort of not noticed (there is a hand waving in that statement it does require analysis). What they are measuring directly is the expansion and contraction of space itself which is what a GR gravity wave is.

If you prefer we could use the term ripples in space and time rather than gravity waves which is more accurate to what they are measuring and gets rid of the layman wave concept.

To a degree your sort of gravity wave is self evident by the fact we have tides on our oceans etc. The irony is Earth/Moon must make GR gravity waves according to GR but it's to small for even LIGO to detect. So if GR is right both your sort and the GR ripple in time and space wave are created by the moon/earth movement, the second being to small to measure with our current instruments.

So I guess all I can say is your sort of gravity wave is way off topic since we are talking about GR and LIGO detection.
Posted by: paul

Re: Gravity Waves - 01/27/16 12:11 AM

All right , I guess this is where I leave then.

I don't have a belief that space expands or contracts
nor do I believe that time exist.
so that stuff is below my intelligence level and since I
don't feel compelled to lower myself I wont really say much
more than that ... peeking behind the curtain watching the
wizard pressing the buttons and pulling the levers that
make him look fearless , amazing and possibly important.

Quote:
What they are measuring directly is the expansion and contraction of space itself which is what a GR gravity wave is.


according to my non beliefs in the above requirements of
your brand of physics I will now state that the LIGO machine
is some crackpot device based on fakery and false physics.
Posted by: Orac

Re: Gravity Waves - 02/11/16 04:37 PM

And its official we have direct gravity wave detection of a two black hole merger detected on two independent LIGO units at exactly the same time stamps ( September 14, 2015 at 5:51 a.m. Eastern Daylight Time). The have only released the area of sky for the event is southern hemisphere but they would know the origin closer than that.

The 7 millisecond difference between the signals in Louisiana and Washington sets the speed of the detected gravity waves at or very close to the speed of light c.

http://phys.org/news/2016-02-scientists-glimpse-einstein-gravitational.html
http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithab...s/#5e1367f64b15

Lots of crackpots will be wheeling out the excuses or going the whole conspiracy path I guess.

Apparently there is also another event under investigation which had also been leaked. The likely detection rate with the current detectors will be one every two-three months, if we have the black hole numbers right. I guess what all the scientists hope for is the gravity wave from an exploding star as it will give data on the metric under completely different conditions.

So we have the first physical proof that black holes exist and that the theory of relativity is the only theory that correctly describes them. I suspect we will see a lot of improvements in black hole physics as the discovery rules some stuff in and lots of stuff out.

There will be lots of countries scrambling to build there own versions of LIGO, Italy will be the next as it has an old LIGO which just needs detector upgrades. Everyone is expecting China to announce plans sooner rather than later.
Posted by: Bill

Re: Gravity Waves - 02/11/16 05:51 PM

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
Posted by: Orac

Re: Gravity Waves - 02/11/16 06:19 PM

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.
Posted by: paul

Re: Gravity Waves - 02/12/16 01:43 AM

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.

Posted by: Orac

Re: Gravity Waves - 02/12/16 03:38 AM

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.
Posted by: Orac

Re: Gravity Waves - 02/12/16 04:42 AM

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.
Posted by: newton

Re: Gravity Waves - 02/12/16 09:10 AM

................................^
................^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 ?


Posted by: newton

Re: Gravity Waves - 02/12/16 09:25 AM

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 !!!
Posted by: Bill S.

Re: Gravity Waves - 02/12/16 04:11 PM

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?
Posted by: paul

Re: Gravity Waves - 02/12/16 04:47 PM

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.

Posted by: pokey

Re: Gravity Waves - 02/12/16 05:30 PM

"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.
Posted by: Bill S.

Re: Gravity Waves - 02/12/16 05:50 PM

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


That would make sense.
Posted by: Bill

Re: Gravity Waves - 02/12/16 05:53 PM

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
Posted by: Bill S.

Re: Gravity Waves - 02/12/16 10:02 PM

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.
Posted by: Bill S.

Re: Gravity Waves - 02/12/16 10:16 PM

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.
Posted by: paul

Re: Gravity Waves - 02/13/16 11:46 AM

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.

Posted by: Bill S.

Re: Gravity Waves - 02/13/16 03:35 PM

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
Posted by: Bill S.

Re: Gravity Waves - 02/13/16 03:54 PM

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
Posted by: Bill S.

Re: Gravity Waves - 02/13/16 04:35 PM

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.”
Posted by: paul

Re: Gravity Waves - 02/14/16 03:23 AM

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.

Posted by: pokey

Re: Gravity Waves - 02/14/16 04:01 AM

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.”
Posted by: paul

Re: Gravity Waves - 02/14/16 04:18 AM

ok thanks I will redo that tomorrow then.

9:51 utc/gmt

for now heres a search of 9:00 utc - 11:00 utc

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

I don't know how to determine if there would have been
a gravity fluctuation or if it would be delayed or not.

maybe tomorrow.

thanks for the time update pokey.
Posted by: Orac

Re: Gravity Waves - 02/14/16 01:12 PM

Originally Posted By: Bill S.
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.

You have been told the answer to this a number of times and still seem to repeat layman untruths.

The sort of singularity you describe only appears directly in the static black hole situation.

The static solution is probably totally unnatural like finding a sun not rotating. Conceptually you can imagine such a thing and the mathematics will explode in your face as an indication of how unnatural and unstable the thing is you have described much less how you would ever create the situation.

As I said the simple laws that govern the ignition coil on your car says that it will produce infinite voltage ... you don't seem to have a problem with that?

How about if I ignore friction then a pushed ball rolls infinitely you don't seem to have a problem with that?

BE CONSISTENT you have a problem with projected infinities start with more down to earth ones.

The detected black holes were rotating (as expected) and merged to a rotating black hole (as expected).

There are only two known exact solutions to a rotating black hole being (a)Kerr and (b)Kerr–Newman descriptions. Most scientists prefer the Kerr metric because the Kerr-Newman has a characteristic we generally don't see by observation.

Perhaps Bill S rather than repeat layman junk and BS you do some reading on what the exact Einstein solutions of a rotating black hole predict. That is bother to actually check rather than parrot other layman.

In a Kerr metric you get metric infinities in a surface description. So "no point" like in the static solution its a surface and the infinity is no different than the projected voltage infinity of an ignition coil. It's simply a value that if you ignore all the actual other details it mathematically projects to it isn't real. One of the things we will now be able to determine is what local factors control the maximum value. For your car ignition coil that is characteristics of the wire and air in and around the coil.
Posted by: Orac

Re: Gravity Waves - 02/14/16 01:59 PM

Now getting back to release data

As is normal for science all the data for the signal release has been published including the signal processing code and algorithms.

https://losc.ligo.org/s/events/GW150914/GW150914_tutorial.html

There will be 4 LIGO's online by January and the detections and data will be made public in realtime. As the new sensors obviously have the required sensitivity the detections will be continually coming in. There is work to increase the detector sensitivity by an estimated 10 fold and that will increase the detection rate even higher.

One of the two new detectors will obviously be Virgo in Italy but the 4th detector site to be operational by January isn't so obvious. Doing some asking about that at the moment and I will let you know when I get an answer. I would expect China and Russia will be scrambling with plans to get involved.

This is going to be like the first telescope and radio telescope, the data is suddenly going to start pouring in now the detection thresholds have been achieved. The really interesting stuff will be when we can project something going to happen with normal telescopes and then watch for the signal with ligo.

The first detection data is currently up but only available for creditted users. The first screenshots provided by Lubos show the current listings

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:https://losc.ligo.org/timeline/query/GW151226/

You can see the two new entries GW151012 & GW151226 as well as background data which are obviously close to publication so stay tuned.
Posted by: paul

Re: Gravity Waves - 02/14/16 02:51 PM

ok , as far as I understand the ligo machines are simply
laser beams in long tunnels that must have sensors used to
detect the movement of the laser caused by gravity
fluctuations.

1) a seismic event on earth would cause a false astronomical
event reading as the ground the ligo is sitting on would tremble.

2) the ligo graphs not too surprisingly look exactly like
a graph of an earthquake.

3) if an seismic event occurred on the earth that was
strong enough to cause a gravity fluctuation of the
earths gravity field then this would also cause false
astronomical event readings.

I haven't yet looked into the possibilities of seismic
events causing a gravity field fluctuation of the earths
gravity field but it seems that it should be a normal occurrence due to the large volume of mass movement
found in a seismic event.

logic is telling me that these machines should be placed
away from the earth if precise measurements are desired
that do not correspond with earth seismic events.

there would be no need for long tunnels.
tiny satellites could be used to measure the location
of the laser beam as it passes through a series of detection
satellites.

the satellites positions could be remotely adjusted to the
desired frequency pattern and desired direction to record
any event that causes light to bend in the cosmos.
Posted by: paul

Re: Gravity Waves - 02/14/16 03:09 PM

ok, looks like the earths gravity field is affected by
earth seismic events , lots of reading on the subject.

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=is+earths+gravity+field+affected+by+earthquakes

unless the ligo machines have some type of anti gravity
field built in to remove the effects of earths gravity
field on the laser then the earths gravity field would
cause the laser to bend and tremble during a seismic event
occurring on the earth.

but having anti gravity built into the ligo would defeat the purpose of the ligo wouldn't it.
Posted by: paul

Re: Gravity Waves - 02/14/16 04:03 PM

LOL ...

time lapse gravity anomalies from grace.

if the earth had a thick layer of water the waters
surface would deform to follow these differences in
gravity intensities.

there would be mountain ranges of water...
and water valleys...
it could be a really fun water park.

Posted by: Orac

Re: Gravity Waves - 02/14/16 05:06 PM

You could actually bother to read stuff

https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/page/vibration-isolation

Yeah they have to suppress seismic activity and all earthquake stuff is well out of frequency but you layman never actually want to learn anything.

One of the tests of LIGO is to turn off the active suppression and actually detect seismic activity.

You could also google LIGO noise floor plots and actually look at the levels. The main stuff they have trouble with is man made and close to the LIGO's hence the signifcance of having two detectors separated by long distances. Each LIGO will also go thru a calibration process before and after runs to make sure they held calibration throughout the run.

Love the grasping at straw efforts. Never let the truth get in the way of a good religious story hey Paul. Perhaps GOD coughed or Pink Aliens did a war dance on top of LIGO they haven't calibrated those.

How about before posting ever more stupid things you all bother to actually read about the operation of LIGO, which is actually half the story of LIGO how to eliminate more and more noise and get detection sensitivity to what was required.

All of this stuff is really easy to find before posting stupid arguments.
Posted by: paul

Re: Gravity Waves - 02/14/16 07:21 PM

orac , are you saying that they do have anti gravity
built into the ligo's to isolate the recordings of earth
gravity fluctuations from cosmic gravity fluctuations?

that's brilliant !
Posted by: Bill S.

Re: Gravity Waves - 02/14/16 11:57 PM

Originally Posted By: Bill S
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.


Orac, I think you missed the point of this post, which was simply to suggest to Paul that our amateur “calculations” might not always be sufficient to see the whole picture.

Recall that I also said:

Quote:
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 think this indicates that I am not arguing in favour of misplaced singularities. Quite a long time ago you gave a very informative explanation of different kinds of singularity. I’m sure I have it somewhere in my notes, but can’t find it at the moment.
Posted by: paul

Re: Gravity Waves - 02/15/16 12:28 AM

Quote:
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.


I suppose you are saying that the gravitational force would
be infinite as well.

and since I don't think that mass has a set speed limit
because men gave it one I would have to say that if gravity were infinite anywhere in the cosmos we wouldn't be here now.

because everything with mass would have been sucked into it long long ago.

but in order to support the first flawed theory you must
continue to use flawed logic infinitely.

Posted by: Orac

Re: Gravity Waves - 02/15/16 02:35 AM

Originally Posted By: paul
orac , are you saying that they do have anti gravity
built into the ligo's to isolate the recordings of earth
gravity fluctuations from cosmic gravity fluctuations?

that's brilliant !

No they trapped your GOD and get him to adjust it. They pay him by sacrificing a few goats.

Sorry I don't discuss stupidity but I do like to practice my satire.

You can't believe the result because of your beliefs and that is fine .. just say it, stop making silly stuff up.

The technical detailing of the active/passive suspension is quite clear and how it achieves suppression of interference, try reading instead of posting EVER MORE STUPID POSTS. All the suppression is calibrated and tested and they have lovely test series results.

At the moment all you are doing is insulting years of hard work by scientists and making a fool of yourself.

Originally Posted By: Paul
I suppose you are saying that the gravitational force would be infinite as well.

Gravity is not a force in GR so that is impossible and beyond wrong but is just stupid.

However in Newtonian gravity it is a force which goes to infinity at R=0, so using Paul logic it is wrong ... PAUL, SCORES AN OWN GOAL laugh
Posted by: Orac

Re: Gravity Waves - 02/15/16 03:39 AM

Rose my dear so how would you like me to handle this under our new liberal discussion policy?

We have one of the more important and interesting scientific advancements which it would be interesting to discuss. Then we have our resident religious elements wanting to post the usual science is bad, science is wrong posts continually.

Should I argue with what is a completely ridiculous trash or just ignore it? I fear this is going to try and end up like arguing with Marosz an exercise in stupidity.

I am will be happy to ignore them so long as they keep posts brief so they don't break up the discussion. How many words do you really need to say science is evil/bad/wrong every post.

As expected with the policy you are getting quite a band of crackpots here and it's starting to look nothing like a science forum. I however do get fun practicing my English, and at least for me I gain something smile
Posted by: Orac

Re: Gravity Waves - 02/15/16 04:55 AM

In preprint the Fermi Space telescope has recorded a gamma ray burst which is consistent with the LIGO result.

http://gammaray.nsstc.nasa.gov/gbm/publications/preprints/gbm_ligo_preprint.pdf

Unfortunately the telescope wasn't looking directly at the event area at the time and so can only say the results are consistent.

In techno speak:
"The most likely location of GW150914-GBM falls within the likely location of the gravity wave source GW150914"

As discussed in future when events can be predicted both Ligo and the normal telescopes will be able to synchronize observations.

As the above shows even unplanned there is a high probability given the number of telescopes in operation that events from Ligo will be able to be directly confirmed. There is even a good chance as the other events of the first run are released they may be able to be matched to telescope observations.

The interesting part technically is that for a gamma ray emission to be made by the event there had to be matter close but still outside the black holes event horizon during the merger. If that is common then it is going to open ability for some sort of "x-ray" analysis of matter very close to a black hole during a merger which has got lots of scientists thinking about new space instruments.
Posted by: Bill S.

Re: Gravity Waves - 02/15/16 01:13 PM



I’ve not had time to read all of this, nor am I likely to, but, from what I have read, it seems like the sort of cautious record of an observation that would be classed as sound science, whatever the ultimate outcome.

Quote:
…. it's starting to look nothing like a science forum.


One of the reasons I have stuck with SAGG is that “non-scientific” opinions are not usually stamped flat on sight. However, it seems a shame that a combination of trolling and politics makes it the sort of forum that people looking for scientific answers, or willing to give such answers, would find off putting.
Posted by: paul

Re: Gravity Waves - 02/15/16 01:55 PM

I see someones tail between his legs as he runs away
whinning .... boo hoo hoo

they may have a suspension system installed to counteract
any ground movement below the ligo but there is
no counteraction available that would counteract any
gravity fluctuations due to seismic activity...

laugh

BTW orac , SAGG isn't a pat on the back forum where know
it all's gather to confirm each others intelligence.

if you cant handle criticism or if your version of science
isn't respected on SAGG the way you personally believe it
should be then you should go find yourself a nice
compatible pat on the back forum , there a dime a dozen but theres no discussion available.

Posted by: paul

Re: Gravity Waves - 02/15/16 02:57 PM

BTW...

the gravity from outside the earths gravity field would
be a pull away from the earth correct?

then why is it that the beginning lines in
both the H1 and L1 graphs show the direction of the
intensity of gravity as being towards the earth
and not away from the earth?

zoom in ... zooooom wayyy in... see for yourselfishness.



Posted by: Orac

Re: Gravity Waves - 02/15/16 05:12 PM

Originally Posted By: paul
they may have a suspension system installed to counteract any ground movement below the ligo but there is
no counteraction available that would counteract any
gravity fluctuations due to seismic activity...

REPEATING LIES DOES NOT MAKE THEM TRUE.

Ready it's really simple even religious practitioners should be able to understand.

You have two LIGO's turn the seismic suppression off one and leave it on the other .... DOH.

Wait for a reasonable earthquake now compare results smile

You can tell if the seismic suppression works pretty dam easy and put error bars and numbers around the suppression ability.

So the seismic suppression is calibrated .... SO STOP LYING OR AT BEST MAKING THINGS UP.

Those scientists are pretty dam sneaky and we didn't even have to sacrifice a goat.
Posted by: Orac

Re: Gravity Waves - 02/15/16 05:20 PM

Originally Posted By: paul
then why is it that the beginning lines in
both the H1 and L1 graphs show the direction of the
intensity of gravity as being towards the earth
and not away from the earth?

I shouldn't laugh but that was pretty funny. I am not sure how to even start with this one ... hmm lets try.

Here is a graph of an electrical AC waveform of a power mains on an oscilloscope which looks like this



So are you saying the positive waveform means the voltage is going away from earth and the negative part towards earth?

If you get the problem with that, then you will get why I was laughing at your comment. I really am not sure how you want me to answer it as it's really really silly.

So Paul, does turning the graph upside down make it different? smile
Posted by: Orac

Re: Gravity Waves - 02/15/16 05:43 PM

Originally Posted By: Bill S.
One of the reasons I have stuck with SAGG is that “non-scientific” opinions are not usually stamped flat on sight. However, it seems a shame that a combination of trolling and politics makes it the sort of forum that people looking for scientific answers, or willing to give such answers, would find off putting.

I agree which is why I questioned Rose. I think the science/NQS division was much better, when enforced it stopped the trolling and interrupting.

For me the forum works because I can practice my English, mixed with science. I often wonder what you get from here you sort have graduated beyond most of the discussions here.

I laughed over at one of the Paul's thread AR2 posted
Originally Posted By: Amaranth Rose II
I don't see how this topic relates to anything remotely scientific. This is a social issue.

Not sure why this particular post was singled out.
Posted by: Bill S.

Re: Gravity Waves - 02/15/16 07:09 PM

Here's a thought. Part of the definition of a field is that it can have waves in it. In quantum fields, these waves are also particles.

Now that (hopefully) gravity waves have been detected, will one of the next steps be to try to find out if wave/particle duality applies to gravity?
Posted by: newton

Re: Gravity Waves - 02/15/16 08:06 PM

WHAT IT IS GRAVITATION ?


1861 J. C. Maxwell, published his theory of electromagnetic fields and radiation, which shows that light has momentum and thus can exert pressure on objects.
1901 P. N. Lebedev EXPERIMENTAL EXAMINATION OF LIGHT PRESSURE
2011 Grover Swartzlander first began to examine a revolutionary concept in optical physics after studying the flight of a moth. He watched the animal use its wings to create lift, which led to flight. Swartzlander asked : Could light be used to create the same effect?


HOW HEAVY IS 1kg ???

0,001 mm sheet has got near 100 m^2 area !!!

[img]http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-a5r9GtqfrbY/Vb3ULiRMuKI/AAAAAAAACcs/EOVyEkykhcU/s1600/galileo.jpg
[/img]

we have normal AIR's preasure /temperature
we need ADD TO PHYSICS
NORMAL EM CONDITION !!!

How heavy is 1kg wood and steel ?




EXIST TWO TYPES EM PREASURE
static and dynamic !!!

m=m but ?


DYNAMIC PROBLEM




HOW MOTION IS CHANGING Q ?



EM praeasure = ENERGY's density !!!




PLEASE COMPARE EARTH TO TRUCK !!!

EARTH's ATOMS are changing local EM preasure !!!
EM radiation around Earth want to destroy LOWER PREASURE AREA
( C speed = cavitation for EM preasure )





ABOVE MODEL = CLASSICA not STUPID THEORY but Simple DYNAMICA
IDEAL GAS MODEL !!!







PLEASE TAKE PENCIL and CONFIRM 45 degrees problem




EM DRIVE ?
[img]http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-spFELf_xcJ0/U_CBPKLmCEI/AAAAAAAAB5M/FfYELmw3M6c/s1600/pytanie1.jpg[/img]


[img]http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-vyrJ7RJ11uU/VoETV6_ew0I/AAAAAAAACj0/0XmMIP-rYy4/s1600/cv.jpg[/img]


WHY WE NEED STABILISATION FOR VEHICLE ?

[img]http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-S0fy0L8E410/Vb3UhuFVICI/AAAAAAAACcw/HAb9cVlSj4M/s1600/SunEarth.jpg[/img]

[img]http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-F9IkgNl8SaU/VeGJvlxWUQI/AAAAAAAACek/S0jKA-zP6rg/s1600/123.jpg[/img]


PLEASE EVALUATE A-A area ( Joul/cubic meter = N/m^2 = Pascal )

[img]http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-XOxE9OYcVys/VP1HK3fFPgI/AAAAAAAACQc/EnJXXu4d2lg/s1600/CIMG3541.JPG[/img]
Posted by: newton

Re: Gravity Waves - 02/15/16 08:25 PM

ROCKET IS ONLY MORE FAR FROM PLANET !
ROCKET CAN NOT ESCAPE FROM UNIVERSE ( because rocket = one body from big system - each body is important )





HOW FAR FROM SUN IS MASS m on the table ?




PLEASE MAKE ABOVE TEST INSIDE ROCKET or NEAR SUN ?m= m but what about Q =Q ?



DO YOU UNDERSTAHND THAT UNIVERSE = MANY BODIES !

ACCELERATION it is not GRAVITATION !!!





Posted by: newton

Re: Gravity Waves - 02/15/16 08:34 PM

I can not understand all ?

Einstein ? what is inside this theory

I proved that Exist Doppler ( Red)
Copernicus = Huge and strong evidence !

I showing that Acceleration it is not gravitation !

m=m but Q ??? to evaluate Q we must describe motion by dynamica

HOW BIG FORCE IS REGISTERING MASS m ?
where is mass m ?
haw fast is moving m ? and motion's direction





EXPERIMENT WITH AIRPLANE and CLOCK ?

How heavy are electrons ? why clock is slowing down





Posted by: newton

Re: Gravity Waves - 02/15/16 08:50 PM

DYNAMIC TEST FOR ABSOLUTE ROTATION !

Light is pushing Air during below test


WORK = FORCE x DISTANCE

We have master sample for ENERGY PoRTION
(1 mol hydrogen explosion - FLASH )

how many Jouls will lost Light to push AIR ?
how bright signal will register FILM ?

AIR IS DANCING !!!

EXIST OMEGA !!!



PLEASE ADD TO ABOVE TEST BELOW PROBLEM






MACIEJ MAROSZ POLAND 2012
DYNAMICA inside MICHELSON MORLEY
Posted by: paul

Re: Gravity Waves - 02/16/16 12:40 AM

so if the ligo suppresses the seismic motion effects
then that seismic suppression also nulls any gravitation
fluctuations that are the result of seismic activity?

laugh

how does the ligo suppress gravity fluctuations?

does it only suppress the earths gravity fluctuations?

have they discovered some type of gravity shield?

Posted by: paul

Re: Gravity Waves - 02/16/16 12:53 AM

Quote:
So are you saying the positive waveform means the voltage is going away from earth and the negative part towards earth?


the ligo uses a laser beam in a long tunnel
to detect gravity fluctuations.

the laser beam will move up away from the earth if there
is a increase in gravity intensity coming from above

likewise the laser will move downwards towards the earth
if there is a gravity intensity coming from the earth.

does that make sense to you ?

to me its obvious that the detection is taking place
when the laser beam bends due to gravity fluctuations.

unless Im wrong , figure the odds of me being wrong and
you being right...LOL

shocked
Posted by: paul

Re: Gravity Waves - 02/16/16 01:22 AM

plus , you should practice your paragraph comprehension
your flawed comprehension does not equate to you being right.

Quote:
You have two LIGO's turn the seismic suppression off one and leave it on the other .... DOH.

Wait for a reasonable earthquake now compare results smile

You can tell if the seismic suppression works pretty dam easy and put error bars and numbers around the suppression ability.


also: a laser beam that is being moved up and down to
suppress seismic motion will cause the laser beam to
form a wave.

and: seismic motion waves caused at the earths surface
radiate outwards from the epicenter so the two ends of the tunnel will respond to each seismic wave at different times.

I did not read where there was a detected motion wave
during the recording of the proposed gravity wave detection
event but the graphs show that what was detected was
coming from below the ligo.

the graph shows the gravity intensity in both (+)and(-)
since the desired ligo detection was the detection of the
gravity of a black hole system beyond the earth then I
would think that the engineers and designers of the ligo
would have used the (+) side to show positive gravity
fluctuations of the black hole system not the gravity
fluctuations of the earth.
Posted by: Orac

Re: Gravity Waves - 02/16/16 01:37 AM

Paul lets just say yes you are wrong and it isn't worth even discussing such blatant stupidity any more than Marosz's spam.

Paul go and read the LIGO site and what LIGO is actually measuring which has nothing to do with any gravitational field. LIGO doesn't measure voltages, air pressure or force either, strange as it may be to you. That is why your post is spam and why I will ask Rose to treat it as such and won't answer silly nonsense.

Rose my dear would you like to do the honors and remove both these sets of spam. If they want to make there own threads on their stupidity I have no issue but can they get these longs posts of rubbish out of this thread. I am sure if people are interested they will flock to Paul and Marosz's thread to discuss it with them. To get back to an actual discussion post we now have to scroll back an entire page between these two sets of spam. As discussed above with Paul he hasn't even bothered to work out what LIGO measures and we have long posts on completely unrelated things.

I am not sure what you want to do with Marosz he doesn't seem to ever get the message no matter how much we ask he writes and doesn't post massive walls of spam images.
Posted by: Bill S.

Re: Gravity Waves - 02/16/16 03:15 AM

Just another 334 posts and Paul will be top poster; perhaps he will not need to blanket threads with posts then, and will be able to return to a less frenetic style of posting. smile

I would hold out no such hope for Marosz. frown
Posted by: newton

Re: Gravity Waves - 02/16/16 05:38 AM

SPAM ???

DOPPLER = SPAM ???

are You joking ?

3Hz example = spam BUT Michelson Morley = Einstein

Marosz Bad
Eaisten Good



DOPPLER ( RED SHIFT )


MICHELSON MORLEY (Earth is making rotation please mark X axis (Earth around own axis omega ) please take more longer arm




HI HITLA ORAC
ZIG HI
ARBACH MACH FRIE !




next "famous paradox"
EXIST SMALL RED SHIFT inside MICHELSON MORLEY
this red SHIFT is very very ... very Small
AND MR EINSTEIN = GENIUS



DEAR CHILDREN TAKE INTERFEROMETER COPERNICUS = IDIOT
DOPPLER is VERY VERY SMALL
BONAPETIT
- relativity is unlogic
HARD TO EAT BUT WE CONFIRMED ALL
You need close nose by EQUATIONS and more theories !:):)




Posted by: newton

Re: Gravity Waves - 02/16/16 05:50 AM

LIGO ? ???

today I found next s... bonapetit

this s.. is about gravitation

EAT EAT THIS S...

Posted by: Orac

Re: Gravity Waves - 02/16/16 05:51 AM

I am with Rose on the other thread Marosz seek help .... honestly.

You obviously have at least realized the observation says your theory is wrong so we have made a small step forward. There were ten others before that but I don't mind we have progress with you.

Yes your theory is wrong and science told you to take a running jump putting it a bit nicer than you. You have worked out your chances of anyone listening is about zero and that is true.

That is called a falsification and your theory is stone dead ... we read it the last rights and cremated it.

Now why don't you try actually learning how they knew what to predict and try reading and studying rather than getting angry. You may then actually be able to get a job in the area and away from CNC programming which is what you said you wanted.
Posted by: newton

Re: Gravity Waves - 02/16/16 05:59 AM

DOPPLER = THEORY ???

V1 = 54 000 km/s
V2 = 108 000 km/s
R1= 300 000 km/s
R2= 600 000 km/s

DO YOU RECOGNIZE DOPPLER ?
OR I MADE MISTAKE !!!



DIAGRAMS ? my camera = diagram hologram in my brain ?
DOPPLER and RED shift not exist
MAROSZ = spamer ?



WE HAVE ZERO or DOPPLER RED ??!!!



ZIG HI
HI HITLA !!!


BONAPETIT ORAC !!!
Michelson–Morley experiment
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Michelson and Morley's interferometric setup, mounted on a stone slab that floats in an annular trough of mercury.
The Michelson–Morley experiment was performed over the spring and summer of 1887 by Albert A. Michelson and Edward W. Morley at what is now Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio, and published in November of the same year.[1] It compared the speed of light in perpendicular directions, in an attempt to detect the relative motion of matter through the stationary luminiferous aether ("aether wind"). The result was negative, in that the expected difference between the speed of light in the direction of movement through the presumed aether, and the speed at right angles, was found not to exist; this result is generally considered to be the first strong evidence against the then-prevalent aether theory, and initiated a line of research that eventually led to special relativity, which rules out a stationary aether.[A 1] The experiment has been referred to as "the moving-off point for the theoretical aspects of the Second Scientific Revolution".[A 2]

IN LIGO THEY are using MICHESLON MORLEY TOOL
BUT THEY NOT SEE RED SHIFT ????
famous zero ?
how THEY WANT TO MEASURE SPACE OSCYLATION WITHOUT
ACCEPT FACT THAT exist doppler ?

we have to disprove zero ON THE table = we not have relativity !

Posted by: Orac

Re: Gravity Waves - 02/16/16 07:24 AM

Not sure why you are ranting at me Marosz, I don't see I can do anything about it, but lets try.

Marosz, what exactly is it you want me to do in easy concise instructions?
Posted by: newton

Re: Gravity Waves - 02/16/16 09:14 AM

Please Evaluate Doppler


Earth's rotation respect to own AXIS X point




...................^V1............V2
X-----------------SOURCE----R---SENSOR2
.....................
.....................
.....................R distance
.....................
....................^V3
.................sensor1>V4


Earth is making rotation = Each sensor = Doppler RED shift

V1 ,V2 , (V1 + V2 )


WHY IN BOOKS ( physics ) we have FAMOUS ZERO ( Michelson Morley )
it it basic experiment for Einstein ? or it is stupid test



Michelson Morley = Evidence HOW ZERO is NOT ZERO
( it is evidence how theory is stupid ... and empty )




LIGO? they are using INTERFEROMETER to confirm Einstein's Theory ( Marosz' smile FUNY ! they need use this tool to DISPROVE EINSTEIN to show DOPPLER and COPERNICUS and MAROSZ's effect! they are able read DOPPLER ! not ZERO ! )

THEY ARE ABLE MEASURE
ABSOLUTE MOTION !!!!
Posted by: newton

Re: Gravity Waves - 02/16/16 09:27 AM

BIG QESTION ? WHY LIGO is doing this idiotism ?
in my opinion not exist nothing without logic

IT CAN BE SPECIAL ACTIVITIY they blocking knowledge about
NEW VERY precission GPS SYSTEM to protect SECRET THEY SALING
stupid story about TIME AND SPACE ..

REAL GPS is very simple to build

peple who like BOATS - very well understand
that to evaluate position I need only 3 vectors and
astronomy time algoitme





to steering GPS we must understand INTENSITY problem

1861 J. C. Maxwell, published his theory of electromagnetic fields and radiation, which shows that light has momentum and thus can exert pressure on objects.
1901 P. N. Lebedev EXPERIMENTAL EXAMINATION OF LIGHT PRESSURE


WHERE THE SIGNAL STARTED
WHERE IS SENSOR ?






HOW BIG FORCE IS PUSHING BEARINGS ???



Posted by: Orac

Re: Gravity Waves - 02/16/16 09:34 AM

I can't understand that wall of pictures, it is like childrens scribble to me. Lots of weird unrelated things.

You have been told this by every person I have seen discussing things with you and still you persist ... your images make no sense.

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result !!!!

EXPLAIN TO ME IN WORDS WHAT IT IS YOU WANT ME TO DO.

Even your bad English makes more sense to me than your images.
Posted by: newton

Re: Gravity Waves - 02/16/16 09:39 AM

HOW WORKS GPS ?


A(source)....................B (sensor )

each sensor optica has got SENSITIVE ( parameter)
for Example I see You = I'm registering ( 10 Jouls per sec )

Each Source has got POWER ( parameter ) 100 Joul/ sek ( emmision )


HOW BIG INTESITY IS REGISTERING SENSOR ( camera )


A >>> V1 ..................B >>> V1



Absolute motion it is BASIC info to wrote algoritms
Where the signal started ? where I see signal ? where is object now !



A > V1 ..................B >>>>>>>>>>>>> V2


Sensor will not register the same intesity ( compare to V1)

evidence?

this boat can not cross C speed




Exist in universe bodies FASTER tnan Light ?
we need ver special observations

45 degree? gives 1,41... C




BR TO ALL PEOPLE WHO LIKE KNOWLEDGE and RESPECT LOGICA
!!




Posted by: Orac

Re: Gravity Waves - 02/16/16 09:43 AM

You ask a question ... How GPS works?

Then post a pile of stuff including images which has nothing to do with the question.

The GPS system doesn't give a rats about power or intensity and I can't remotely understand those images so PLEASE TYPE IN WORDS.

I can triangulate a signal source with the strongest signal or the weakest it has no bearing I just need a timing advance in the signal. What makes a GPS work is the signal is special it includes a time stamp within the signal.

Read ... GPS uses 5 easy steps.
http://www.trimble.com/gps_tutorial/howgps.aspx

In step 3 they say this "GPS needs very accurate timing which it achieves with some tricks". The trick is the put the timestamp in the signal.

I have no way to relate how a GPS works to your images. You either have no idea how a GPS works or you can't draw pictures.

Heaven only knows what spaceships and planes have to do with all this I am lost at the first image.

So which is it, you don't understand how GPS works or you cant draw?

This is why I refuse to discuss stuff with you because it is like gibberish to me.
Posted by: newton

Re: Gravity Waves - 02/16/16 09:57 AM

Originally Posted By: Orac
You ask a question ... How GPS works?

Then post a pile of stuff including images which has nothing to do with the question.

The GPS system doesn't give a rats about power or intensity I can't remotely understand those images so PLEASE TYPE IN WORDS.

I can triangulate a signal source with the strongest signal or the weakest it has no bearing I just need a timing advance in the signal. What makes a GPS work is the signal is special it includes a time stamp within the signal.

Read ... GPS uses 5 easy steps.
http://www.trimble.com/gps_tutorial/howgps.aspx

In step 3 they say this "GPS needs very accurate timing which it achieves with some tricks". The trick is the put the timestamp in the signal.

I have no way to relate how a GPS works to your images. You either have no idea how a GPS works or you can't draw pictures.

So which is it you don't understand how a GPS works or you can draw?



SIMPLE EXAMPLE !

Source ----------R--------sensor1

Source-----------R--------sensor2


Sensor 1 has got huge SENSITIVE ! ( one foton )

Sensor 2 has got VERY VERY Low SENSITIVE ( 1 MJ )


WHAT IS BEETER sensor 1 or sensor 2 ?


HOW MANY JOULS/mm^2 is registering left/right wall ?

1861 J. C. Maxwell, published his theory of electromagnetic fields and radiation, which shows that light has momentum and thus can exert pressure on objects.

1901 P. N. Lebedev EXPERIMENTAL EXAMINATION OF LIGHT PRESSURE

Light or Radio 3D signal it is EM radiation




THE SIGNAL STARTED IN t=0
How big intensity is registering walls ?





HOW BIG FORCE IS PUSHING EARTH ?

CONSTANT ? or NOT ?





ORAC use Your brain ? please not read stupid theories about space !


MORE SIMPLE EVIDENCE to SEE black HOLE people are building more biger and more sensitive sensors !!!



me ..................LIGHT >>>..........black hole

light is not able hit black hole


me .............Light>>>......ball > 2m/s

I see ball because light hit ball and back to me

( I WILL NEVER SEE FRESH BALL POSITION !!!



me ........................BULB >>> XX m/s


if I have knowledge about bulb's power
bulb's size I can evaluate bulb's motion




I will never see "FRESH Position" for bulb
BUT i can evaluate where the BULB started 3D signal ?




ALSO bulb COLOUR is IMPORTANT !!!







Posted by: Orac

Re: Gravity Waves - 02/16/16 09:58 AM

Originally Posted By: Marosz
WHAT IS BEETER sensor 1 or sensor 2 ?

Umm neither they are both fine in most cases.

What does better even mean? If you are above signal to noise for operation they are actually identical.

Lets make this practical your car radio doesn't care how close or far you are away from the radio station so long as it is within valid signal to noise ratio you will have reception.

The GPS system is the same so long as you meet signal/noise ratio the signal strength is irrelevant.

OMG then you went and posted more images .... WHY MAROSZ .. I can't even understand the first 4 lines. I don't need the images I need an explaination.

Ok I am done you are creating a wall of image spam that people will have to wade thru.

Rose apologies I tried to communicate feel free to delete it all, I thought I would get less spam not more.

We are done Marosz you won't listen and stop doing that wall of image spam ... Orac exiting this go back to being angry.
Posted by: paul

Re: Gravity Waves - 02/16/16 06:00 PM

Quote:
Just another 334 posts and Paul will be top poster


lets see , I joined the forum in 2006.
Bill s joined in 2010.
orac joined in 2011.

in 10 years I have made 3806 post
in 6 years Bill s has made 3406 post
in 5 years orac has made 2643 post

you guys are really catching up quickly.

Quote:

perhaps he will not need to blanket threads with posts then, and will be able to return to a less frenetic style of posting.


I don't seek the top poster status on SAGG , until today
I didn't even know there was one.

according to the numbers above Bill S will overtake me
long before I reach the 4136 post mark because orac is
suckin the hind tit at 2643 post just ahead of
Revking at 2304 post.

congrats in advance Bill S.
Posted by: paul

Re: Gravity Waves - 02/16/16 06:58 PM

Quote:
Paul lets just say yes you are wrong


But I'm not wrong.

Quote:
Gravitational waves cause space itself to stretch in one direction and get squeezed in a perpendicular direction. In the wake of a gravitational wave, one arm of an interferometer lengthens while the other shrinks, then vice versa. The arms will change lengths in this way for as long as it takes the wave to pass.


the above description of course talks about space stretching and squeezing which isn't possible and in actuality it is
nothing more than the laser beam itself bending towards
and away from a source of gravity intensity causing the
beam itself to be longer due to its curvature and then
shorter when it returns to its normal state resulting in a difference of the travel time of the light beam from the
laser to the detection equipment.

space doesn't stretch or squeeze those ideas were formed to
pacify some previous illusion.

stacking a lie on top of a lie does not hide the first lie.


https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/LA/page/what-is-interferometer

Quote:
As the length of each arm varies, the distance traveled by each laser beam also varies (farther in the longer arm, not as far in the shorter arm).


the reason why there is less distance traveled in the shorter
arm is because there is less exposure time to the gravity
fluctuations which does not allow the beam to be pulled
away as far from its normal state thus causing a curvature less than the curvature in the longer arm.

I certainly hope they are not wanting us to believe that the
arm itself (the 2.5 mile long tunnel ) is getting longer
because of the gravity fluctuations from some event over a
billion light years away... laugh

once again you are wrong orac , why don't you just give
up trying to impress others and try to gain some measure
of intellect.

Posted by: newton

Re: Gravity Waves - 02/16/16 07:46 PM

I HAVE VERY STRONG EVIDENCE !!!

EACH ATOM ON EARTH and (INSIDE OUR BODIES too ) feel INTENSITY
PROBLEM !!!

below picture made very precission microscope



DO YOU SEE CIRCLE OR ELLIPSE ?
( hydrogen atom )




WE SCHOULD IFORM PEOPLE IN LAB WHERE THEY MAKE OBSERVATIONS
THEY SCHOULD TRY MAKE MICHELSON MORLEY test but for ATOM

INTENSITY PROBLEM MAROSZ version









Problem is very very old and very very simple but VERY VERY NEW

2011 Grover Swartzlander first began to examine a revolutionary concept in optical physics after studying the flight of a moth. He watched the animal use its wings to create lift, which led to flight. Swartzlander asked : Could light be used to create the same effect?

[video:youtube]https://youtu.be/PabPQbCnJz4[/video]



mV = mV dynamica = strong evidence !!!!


We also need explain other OLD PROBLEM
DOUBLE SLITS

I not see magic in this experiemt It is classica
How electron is changing motion ( EM wave is pushing electron during motion )

What we see EM radiation or electron ?

PLEASE USE INTENSITY PROBLEM TO EVALUATE p = MV
and everything in physics will be cleare very cleare




1 EM wave is hiting electron
2 EM wave is backing
3 EM wave is faster than electron



mV = mV ?
Yes NEWTON's idea is very very close to true



I working also on other model ( I need LAB to test all )
I need measure INTENSITY how big intensity I see on screen
( where master signal hit electron ? where is electron ? where is screen ? )

DUALISM not EXIST
few people is trying to develop MATH not physics and observations !!!

we have the same problem with interferometer !



Posted by: newton

Re: Gravity Waves - 02/16/16 07:56 PM

IN POLAND TWO YOUNG PEOPLE STARTED PUBLIC BOOKS

"SPECIAL AETHER THEORY "

http://www.ste.com.pl/

I SPOKE WITH ONE AUTHOR
THEY BOTH TALKING THE SAME WHAT I
they not making observations
they LIKE ONLY MATH !
Posted by: newton

Re: Gravity Waves - 02/16/16 08:00 PM

WE NEED ONLY SHORT TIME 5-10 years people will not like speak about EINSTEIN !!


many years ago CAR's speed 20 km/h

nobody ask about dynamica ( airplane ? Impossible )


50 years later car 100 km/h
Airplne yes we see huge aerodynamic force for Wing



2012 Marosz
8 km/s and we can feel very strong DYNAMIC EM PREASURE
PROBLEM

Posted by: newton

Re: Gravity Waves - 02/16/16 08:06 PM

8 km /s why this speed is important ?

Hydrogen electron 2,18 *10^6 m/s !!!




HOW HEAVY IS MASS m ? m=m but force ???

please study example 1 and 2 ? mass m is slawing down respect to sun
or mass m is faster




SYMETRY IN PHYSICS ??

m=m but Q ????




WE CAN MEASURE DOPPLER EVEN IF EXIST ONLY TWO BODIES IN UNIVERSE !




in universe Exist N objects !
rocket = object N rocket never will escape from universe !


Posted by: newton

Re: Gravity Waves - 02/16/16 08:09 PM







ELECTRONS ARE REGISTERING FORCE ( V^V !! square !!!)



Posted by: newton

Re: Gravity Waves - 02/16/16 08:13 PM

DURING BELOW SITUATION PERSON IS ABLE PUSH
ENERGY ( EM radiation ) OPPOSITE TO HIS MOTION !!!




^
^ DYNAMIC EM PREASURE
^
Person
V
V Q
V


1861 J. C. Maxwell, published his theory of electromagnetic fields and radiation, which shows that light has momentum and thus can exert pressure on objects.
1901 P. N. Lebedev EXPERIMENTAL EXAMINATION OF LIGHT PRESSURE
2011 Grover Swartzlander first began to examine a revolutionary concept in optical physics after studying the flight of a moth. He watched the animal use its wings to create lift, which led to flight. Swartzlander asked : Could light be used to create the same effect?




IN UNIVERSE EXIST MANY STARS !!!
0,001 mm sheet has got near 100 m^2 area



JOUL / CUBIC METER =
= NEWTON * METER / CUBIC METER = N/m^2 = PASCAL



Posted by: Bill S.

Re: Gravity Waves - 02/17/16 12:18 PM

Quote:

according to the numbers above Bill S will overtake me
long before I reach the 4136


Posts in the last 30 days.
Paul: 77
Bill S: 33

Perhaps it takes a mathematician to see that as overtaking.
Posted by: paul

Re: Gravity Waves - 02/17/16 03:04 PM

LOL .. that's because its winter.

probably the same reason orac is posting so much more than
me because its much colder in Chicago.
Posted by: Bill S.

Re: Gravity Waves - 02/20/16 04:25 PM

Is it possible that talk of gravitational waves stretching or contracting spacetime confuses the picture, at least from the “hitch-hiker’s” point of view?

Perhaps we should ask ourselves a few questions, and try answering them. Different people might generate different answers, but here are mine.

Does gravity exist?.... Yes.
Does gravity have a physical influence?.... Yes.
Is gravity a field?.... Yes.
Is it possible to perturb a field?.... Yes.
Is it likely that perturbations of a field would manifest as waves?.... Yes.
Given the above, is it reasonable to assume that gravitational waves might exist?.... Yes.

Is that an oversimplification?....Yes, but it works for me.
Posted by: paul

Re: Gravity Waves - 02/21/16 05:00 PM

the hardest thing to believe was when the article I read
said that the arm became longer...

it would have been much more believable if they would have
been truthful about it and said that the laser beam bent
slightly due to the increased gravity intensity.

but of course that wouldn't have been so sensational now
would it.

the amount of gravity intensity change was extremely low
and certainly would have barely moved the beam itself
let along lengthening the entire 2.5 mile long arm

my first impression was that this claim must have been
a prop up job for Einstein and his ever continuing magic show
portrayed by his cast of followers , not actual scientist.

Quote:
Does gravity exist?.... Yes.
Does gravity have a physical influence?.... Yes.
Is gravity a field?.... Yes.
Is it possible to perturb a field?.... Yes.
Is it likely that perturbations of a field would manifest as waves?.... Yes.
Given the above, is it reasonable to assume that gravitational waves might exist?.... Yes.


that's all good for gravity , but gravity wouldn't stretch
time as time has no physical properties that would lend itself
to stretching.

spacetime does not exist and neither space nor time have
physical properties that would lend themselves to stretching.

I can see a gravity wave existing but not a continual wave
like a light wave unless the volume of mass were being
continually increased and decreased , but not due to
a merging of two masses as is proposed in the articles.
Posted by: newton

Re: Gravity Waves - 02/21/16 06:09 PM



BIG FAT RED SHIFT experiment


please study slowly 3Hz example
( please take pencil and check)





Why test = Big RED test ?

please print below ilustration and please try mark X1 point
x1 - Earth own axis ( 24h rotation period )




EACH COLOUR = FORCE




In 2012 I was first person who saw red ( my small flat Poland )
i marked N-S and W-E direction on floore in my room
I took camera




I did many more work

1861 J. C. Maxwell, published his theory of electromagnetic fields and radiation, which shows that light has momentum and thus can exert pressure on objects.
1901 P. N. Lebedev EXPERIMENTAL EXAMINATION OF LIGHT PRESSURE
2011 Grover Swartzlander first began to examine a revolutionary concept in optical physics after studying the flight of a moth. He watched the animal use its wings to create lift, which led to flight. Swartzlander asked : Could light be used to create the same effect?

My test :

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-k-fEtiw4wbs/VoAepTqBu0I/AAAAAAAACjI/aBzTu8AugkI/s1600/32.jpg



I want to write agreement with anyone who offer me 1000 000 USD
100% rights to BOOK and Papers publication
( Prize can be 10x more high it will be GOOD PROMOTION - you can add informations to press about money that You offer me for my words !!! It must be shock for people who love physics
they not LOVE physics but they LOVE Einsten's marketing!

I also explained DOUBLE SLIT EXPERIMENT ( it is classic mechanica )

I'm only 36 yo
my work
http://tesla4.blogspot.com
Posted by: Bill S.

Re: Gravity Waves - 02/21/16 07:20 PM

Quote:
that's all good for gravity , but gravity wouldn't stretch
time as time has no physical properties that would lend itself
to stretching.


Mine was just a first, faltering, step in the direction of finding where any common ground might be.

At least I know now that your mind is open to the possible existence of gravity waves.
Posted by: Bill S.

Re: Gravity Waves - 02/27/16 03:27 PM

Paul, are you familiar with Louis Savain?

If not, I thought this might interest you.

http://rebelscience.blogspot.co.uk/

On second thoughts, perhaps I should have asked "Are you Louis Savain?" I thought I would get that in before Orac did. laugh
Posted by: paul

Re: Gravity Waves - 02/28/16 02:34 PM

Quote:
On second thoughts, perhaps I should have asked "Are you Louis Savain?" I thought I would get that in before Orac did. laugh


Wow , its like lookin in the mirror , the guy has a head
on his shoulders that's for sure and its not filled with
worthless crap like oracs is.

but no I wouldn't make a blog about how idiotic science has
become because no one cares except the idiots and idiots cant
be taught the truth or learn so what would be the point in doing so.

I would like to make a computer game that pits the old school
scientist against the modern scientist and let them have the
exact same resources on separate planets in separate galaxies and the main objective of the game would be to first survive and then build an economy and then venture out into space and conquer the cosmos ... I can see the modern scientist with their rocket powered spacecraft on their first trip to mars as the old school scientist whiz by at several times the speed of light in one of there galaxy cruisers on there way to some distant galaxy for a few weeks vacation ... looking over at the clunker the modern scientist are strapped into as its image is displayed on the view screen thinking yep , Einstein was right nothing they could possibly ever build could ever travel faster than light.

in unison they all shout out , thank you Einstein for keeping
them so ignorant of the things they could have done as they
send a message back to the main invasion forces informing them of the modern scientist planets location , with emphasis
that the main invasion forces would not be required ... just
send a single unmanned lightly armed scout ... that's all
that should be needed to win the game.
Posted by: Orac

Re: Gravity Waves - 02/28/16 04:12 PM

Oh no the bad reigious nutter is insulting me.

Like all your stupid goat worship rants it has an information value of about zero and has about the same spam rating as Marosz.

If you have nothing but insults and science is bad dribble why don't you go preach back at Sunday school to the little kiddies. I am sure the story of Noah and the Dinosaurs will be a hit.

Lets start counting posts with the same rant just rehashed ... one.

No baby Jesuses were harmed in the production of this post.
Posted by: Bill S.

Re: Gravity Waves - 02/28/16 06:41 PM

Perhaps we could tear ourselves away from unhelpful gods, goats and baby Jesuses.

LS touches on a topic we were discussing in another thread; namely the question as to why we don’t observe run away gravity. I don’t see how the presence, or otherwise, of gravity waves would influence this, as any cancelling, or amplifying, would be only local events.
Quote:
Gravity affects everything that exists equally regardless of mass and this includes massless particles. Both Newton and Galileo understood this centuries ago, even though relativists claim that they are the ones who figured it out. Go figure.

The problem is that this undeniable principle means that gravity also affect gravitational waves. Since these waves affect themselves, they either cancel themselves out or amplify themselves recursively. The same objection applies to so-called curved space and to hypothetical intermediary particles such as gravitons. In other words, if it exists, regardless of its mass, gravity affects it. The infinite self-referential regress is too painful to even contemplate.


He has delightfully confrontational style, but I think, unfortunately, it adds little to his chances of being taken seriously.
Posted by: Orac

Re: Gravity Waves - 02/29/16 12:43 AM

I really don't care what his style is he doesn't have a clue what he is discussing

Gravitational wave
AND
Gravity Wave

ARE NOT THE SAME THING

Paul in his anti science God rant fell into the same hole, they can't even get the basics right.

The question he also avoided which is if everything attracts everything else why doesn't his universe just up and spontaneously collapse. This is the problem with approaching complex problem in a layman simple ways is you are trying to ignore the reality that what your discussion has a massive flaw before you even begin.
Posted by: Bill S.

Re: Gravity Waves - 02/29/16 01:22 PM

Quote:
This is the problem with approaching complex problem in a layman simple ways is you are trying to ignore the reality that what your discussion has a massive flaw before you even begin.


Orac, as you are using SAGG to improve your English, may I make a suggestion.

Take several deep, calming breaths and re-write that sentence. smile
Posted by: Orac

Re: Gravity Waves - 03/01/16 01:56 AM

Rather than me try to construct a sentence about a rather Marosz like crackpot idea why don't you deconstruct the bit you quoted. Pick out whats wrong and right with it.

The extension after your analysis is does he even remotely understand GR or gravitational waves and does he even get classical physics correct.
Posted by: Bill S.

Re: Gravity Waves - 03/01/16 01:44 PM

Orac, I have nothing but admiration for those for whom English is not their first language, but who are brave enough to post on forums like this. I would certainly not comment on your English had you not insisted that improving it was your primary reason for posting here.

You will be aware that in post #55578 I made no suggestions for improvement, because I know you can make improvements yourself. All I was saying was; when you feel the frustration/annoyance that appeared in the sentence I quoted, steady yourself before writing and your English will be better and more easily understood by us mono-lingual characters.

The question must be: Do you want (possibly helpful) comments? If not, I promise I will not comment again.
Posted by: Bill S.

Re: Gravity Waves - 03/01/16 01:52 PM

Back to gravity.

I have, on more than one occasion quoted David Deutsch: “Today we understand gravity through Einstein’s theory rather than Newton’s, and we know that no such force exists”. That seems pretty clear. There is no such force as gravity.

Did Einstein really say that? I think not. In his theory of general relativity gravity is a force field, not much different from the electromagnetic field. It is not four-dimensional curvature. It was Hermann Minkowski who introduced the idea of four-dimensional space-time, which Einstein initially called “superfluous erudition”.

He did eventually accept Minkowski’s interpretation as an alternative mathematical interpretation of his equations. All this means is that his equations for the gravitational field are mathematically equivalent to a curvature of spacetime.

Mathematical equivalence is no guarantee of physical reality.
Posted by: Orac

Re: Gravity Waves - 03/01/16 03:46 PM

You seem to want to avoid it so let me pull the LS rubbish apart
Originally Posted By: LS
Gravity affects everything that exists equally regardless of mass and this includes massless particles.

WRONG under no physics framework does gravity directly effect massless particles. Gravity lensing is an indirect effect but he makes it quite clear he believes it is a direct effect.

For LS is we fire a bullet and a laser horizontally along the same path they are both effected by gravity and slowly bend down until they hit the ground. Have you ever seen a laser beam do that because I sure haven't. Perhaps he should talk to Marosz.
Originally Posted By: LS
Both Newton and Galileo understood this centuries ago, even though relativists claim that they are the ones who figured it out. Go figure.

So no they didn't and nor do any relativists say that and LS is completely wrong ... GO FIGURE

Originally Posted By: LS
The problem is that this undeniable principle means that gravity also affect gravitational waves.

Oh now its an undeniable principle ... so a completely wrong thing is undeniable and its going to effect gravitational waves.

Originally Posted By: LS
Since these waves affect themselves, they either cancel themselves out or amplify themselves recursively.

What is he even talking about???? My best guess is saying they interfere constructively and destructively like a wave in a media and I can only assume he has got gravity wave and gravitational wave mixed up.

Originally Posted By: LS

The same objection applies to so-called curved space and to hypothetical intermediary particles such as gravitons. In other words, if it exists, regardless of its mass, gravity affects it. The infinite self-referential regress is too painful to even contemplate.

The self interaction part is correct we have discussed that before and it is not too painful to contemplate it creates the concept that space must have a pressure to oppose the runaway, something we have discussed.

Now dealing with your later posts your discussion of Einstein is pretty much correct. For all his brilliance he liked his classical world and struggled with what his own theories actually said.

Then finally you say mathematical equivalence is no guarantee of physical reality. Well that is a loaded statement and you need to explain what you mean? Perhaps if you could prove to me the other 3 dimensions exist so I get how your proof is based.

In mathematics if things can not be simplified from 4 dimensions down to 3 then the 4th dimension exists regardless of what you believe. The question of dimensionality is about simplification and concurrent access of phsyics quantities not what you believe or think reality is. You would end up saying to me I don't consider that a dimension it doesn't look like one and I would probably burst into laughter.
Posted by: Bill S.

Re: Gravity Waves - 03/01/16 06:40 PM

Quote:
You seem to want to avoid it so let me pull the LS rubbish apart


Not avoiding it, was still thinking about it.

I had got as far as researching the possibility, or otherwise, of gravitational waves interfering with one another. You seem to be saying that they do not. Is that right?
Posted by: Orac

Re: Gravity Waves - 03/02/16 05:08 AM

Originally Posted By: Bill S.
I had got as far as researching the possibility, or otherwise, of gravitational waves interfering with one another. You seem to be saying that they do not. Is that right?

I am glad you are researching I want to help you to work out the answer and to do that lets give you a very real world example.

In any city you live in there are probably hundreds if not thousands of radio transmission from Radio, TV, CB's as well as unintentional electrical sources. These waves contain EB fields (electric and magnetic) and those fields interact with each other.

LS then gives us his statement
Quote:
Since these waves affect themselves, they either cancel themselves out or amplify themselves recursively.

So apparently communication in all major cities is impossible and can't be happening it is a clear prediction of LS.

So forget what gravitational waves use EM waves and went wrong for poor LS and all the signals amplifying or cancelling out?
Posted by: Orac

Re: Gravity Waves - 03/02/16 05:16 AM

This may help where Brian Greene demonstrated a toy ligo on the late show



You may want to contrast what he demonstrates and search
"What happens when two laser beams intersect each other"

If you are lazy the two laser beams will pass through each other, with no cancellation or amplification even if the same frequency unless they are related in a special way and lets help and give you the word coherence.

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interferometric_visibility) => The interferometric visibility (also known as "interference visibility" or "fringe visibility" or just "visibility") quantifies the contrast of interference in any system which has wave-like properties, such as optics, quantum mechanics, water waves, or electrical signals.

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interferometric_visibility) => The interferometric visibility gives a practical way to measure the coherence of two waves (or one wave with itself).

There is a ghost buster joke in here for sure .... don't cross the beams Bill S.
Posted by: Bill S.

Re: Gravity Waves - 03/02/16 08:05 PM

[quote]I am glad you are researching[quote]

I wish I had time to do more.

I'll come back to this when I've watched the video and followed the link.
Posted by: pokey

Re: Gravity Waves - 06/16/16 12:59 AM

http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/sciencefair/2016/06/15/gravitational-waves-einstein/85941882/

"For only the second time ever, scientists detected gravitational waves, the strange ripples in space-time first foreseen by Albert Einstein a century ago."
Posted by: Orac

Re: Gravity Waves - 06/16/16 06:32 AM

Yes that is the second, its official designation is GW151226 if you want to google it.

There are still at least 3 more smaller ones with higher uncertainty in pre-print.

Edit: I just checked Lisa Pathfinder mission also completed its testing on June 7 with success, I missed the announcement. So that sets the stage for eLISA to be sent to position and expand the detection capabilities and window.

As we discussed these events will be relatively common going forward in the same way the event data from radio telescopes are.