| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Sam Wormley" |
| Date: |
03 Oct 2006 12:41:22 AM |
| Object: |
Four Precise Tests of General Relativity |
Four Precise Tests of General Relativity
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm#News
14 Sep 2006 - Kramer et al. report on an analysis of 2.5 years of timing
data on the double pulsar in a paper published in Science Express (subscription)
online on 14 Sep 2006. The printed version will appear in Science. The neutron
stars masses are now 1.3381 +/- 0.0007 and 1.2489 +/- 0.0007 solar masses. Four
post-Keplerian parameters of the binary are determined and all agree with GR, to
accuracies of 0.3 +/- 1.4%, 0.36 +/- 0.68%, 0.013 +/- 0.05%, and 0.9 +/- 0.55%.
See: http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0609417
.
|
|
| User: "Jan Panteltje" |
|
| Title: Re: Four Precise Tests of General Relativity |
03 Oct 2006 05:02:06 AM |
|
|
On a sunny day (Tue, 03 Oct 2006 05:41:22 GMT) it happened Sam Wormley
<swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in <5KmUg.221958$1i1.80190@attbi_s72>:
Four Precise Tests of General Relativity
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm#News
14 Sep 2006 - Kramer et al. report on an analysis of 2.5 years of timing
data on the double pulsar in a paper published in Science Express (subscription)
online on 14 Sep 2006. The printed version will appear in Science. The neutron
stars masses are now 1.3381 +/- 0.0007 and 1.2489 +/- 0.0007 solar masses. Four
post-Keplerian parameters of the binary are determined and all agree with GR, to
accuracies of 0.3 +/- 1.4%, 0.36 +/- 0.68%, 0.013 +/- 0.05%, and 0.9 +/- 0.55%.
See: http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0609417
OK,
no gravity waves.
OK,
http://www.physorg.com/news12054.html
Why bother?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: Four Precise Tests of General Relativity |
03 Oct 2006 04:04:24 PM |
|
|
Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Tue, 03 Oct 2006 05:41:22 GMT) it happened Sam Wormley
<swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in <5KmUg.221958$1i1.80190@attbi_s72>:
Four Precise Tests of General Relativity
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm#News
14 Sep 2006 - Kramer et al. report on an analysis of 2.5 years of timing
data on the double pulsar in a paper published in Science Express (subscription)
online on 14 Sep 2006. The printed version will appear in Science. The neutron
stars masses are now 1.3381 +/- 0.0007 and 1.2489 +/- 0.0007 solar masses. Four
post-Keplerian parameters of the binary are determined and all agree with GR, to
accuracies of 0.3 +/- 1.4%, 0.36 +/- 0.68%, 0.013 +/- 0.05%, and 0.9 +/- 0.55%.
See: http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0609417
OK,
no gravity waves.
LIGO isn't there yet. Stop pretending the lack of gravitational waves
at the moment is a disproof of GR.
OK,
http://www.physorg.com/news12054.html
Is this the only reference?
I have seen this thing posted dozens of times since march and
yet....this is the only link for it.
http://ilfb.tuwien.ac.at/~tajmar/
Tajmar, M., and de Matos, C.J., "Gravitomagnetic Field of a Rotating
Superconductor and Superfluid", submitted to Physica C (also Los Alamos
gr-qc/0203033)
It has been 8 months since the physorg article and it still hasn't been
published. Physics C isn't THAT slow to publish, is it? Looks like it
was rejected since his paper was published instead here:
http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Articles/3-1/tajmar-final.htm
Real credible, Jan. This is the fuckup of a journal that publishes Ken
Seto. Why is it no actual decent journal has published this guy? If his
results were real, folks would be paying a lot more attention.
Why bother?
Yea Jan, why bother? Is this the best you can come up with?
"Oh LIGO isn't kissing my ***** enough and this guy with an unpublished
result gives a real good argument, so GR must be wrong".
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Four Precise Tests of General Relativity |
03 Oct 2006 08:56:02 AM |
|
|
Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Tue, 03 Oct 2006 05:41:22 GMT) it happened Sam Wormley
<swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in <5KmUg.221958$1i1.80190@attbi_s72>:
Four Precise Tests of General Relativity
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm#News
14 Sep 2006 - Kramer et al. report on an analysis of 2.5 years of timing
data on the double pulsar in a paper published in Science Express (subscription)
online on 14 Sep 2006. The printed version will appear in Science. The neutron
stars masses are now 1.3381 +/- 0.0007 and 1.2489 +/- 0.0007 solar masses. Four
post-Keplerian parameters of the binary are determined and all agree with GR, to
accuracies of 0.3 +/- 1.4%, 0.36 +/- 0.68%, 0.013 +/- 0.05%, and 0.9 +/- 0.55%.
See: http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0609417
OK,
no gravity waves.
OK,
http://www.physorg.com/news12054.html
Why bother?
I'm looking forward to you're eating your hat, Jan... maybe this
year... maybe next!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jan Panteltje" |
|
| Title: Re: Four Precise Tests of General Relativity |
03 Oct 2006 10:54:25 AM |
|
|
On a sunny day (Tue, 03 Oct 2006 13:56:02 GMT) it happened Sam Wormley
<swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in <SZtUg.178985$FQ1.121656@attbi_s71>:
Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Tue, 03 Oct 2006 05:41:22 GMT) it happened Sam Wormley
<swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in <5KmUg.221958$1i1.80190@attbi_s72>:
Four Precise Tests of General Relativity
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm#News
14 Sep 2006 - Kramer et al. report on an analysis of 2.5 years of timing
data on the double pulsar in a paper published in Science Express (subscription)
online on 14 Sep 2006. The printed version will appear in Science. The neutron
stars masses are now 1.3381 +/- 0.0007 and 1.2489 +/- 0.0007 solar masses. Four
post-Keplerian parameters of the binary are determined and all agree with GR, to
accuracies of 0.3 +/- 1.4%, 0.36 +/- 0.68%, 0.013 +/- 0.05%, and 0.9 +/- 0.55%.
See: http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0609417
OK,
no gravity waves.
OK,
http://www.physorg.com/news12054.html
Why bother?
I'm looking forward to you're eating your hat, Jan... maybe this
year... maybe next!
Sam, I _never_ stated I would eat my hat, the one I have here is from
down under, and would not taste good.
After reading LIGOs website some year(?) ago it seems to me I will not be
around by the time they 'expect' to find results, neither will you.
So, while you (we) are waiting why not do something useful like meditation
and find the true self.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Four Precise Tests of General Relativity |
03 Oct 2006 11:23:42 AM |
|
|
Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Tue, 03 Oct 2006 13:56:02 GMT) it happened Sam Wormley
<swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in <SZtUg.178985$FQ1.121656@attbi_s71>:
I'm looking forward to you're eating your hat, Jan... maybe this
year... maybe next!
Sam, I _never_ stated I would eat my hat, the one I have here is from
down under, and would not taste good.
After reading LIGOs website some year(?) ago it seems to me I will not be
around by the time they 'expect' to find results, neither will you.
So, while you (we) are waiting why not do something useful like meditation
and find the true self.
Metaphorically Jan... Hat, Crow, whatever, it will be great to see your
reaction when gravity wave detection is confirmed. :-)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jan Panteltje" |
|
| Title: Re: Four Precise Tests of General Relativity |
03 Oct 2006 11:47:06 AM |
|
|
On a sunny day (Tue, 03 Oct 2006 16:23:42 GMT) it happened Sam Wormley
<swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in <i8wUg.222662$1i1.62440@attbi_s72>:
Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Tue, 03 Oct 2006 13:56:02 GMT) it happened Sam Wormley
<swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in <SZtUg.178985$FQ1.121656@attbi_s71>:
I'm looking forward to you're eating your hat, Jan... maybe this
year... maybe next!
Sam, I _never_ stated I would eat my hat, the one I have here is from
down under, and would not taste good.
After reading LIGOs website some year(?) ago it seems to me I will not be
around by the time they 'expect' to find results, neither will you.
So, while you (we) are waiting why not do something useful like meditation
and find the true self.
Metaphorically Jan... Hat, Crow, whatever, it will be great to see your
reaction when gravity wave detection is confirmed. :-)
There are a lot waiting for something like Utopia too.
Why not go for something that _can_ happen, so you _will_ feel great?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Raymond Yohros" |
|
| Title: Re: Four Precise Tests of General Relativity |
03 Oct 2006 08:42:36 PM |
|
|
Sam Wormley ha escrito:
Metaphorically Jan... Hat, Crow, whatever, it will be great to see your
reaction when gravity wave detection is confirmed. :-)
is there any study on how gravitational waves can be
affected by gravitational fields (like the ones caused by the
earth,moon and the sun?)
why are scientist so convinced that this type of radiation can be
detected on the earth?
regards
raymond
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: Four Precise Tests of General Relativity |
03 Oct 2006 01:34:47 AM |
|
|
Sam Wormley wrote:
Four Precise Tests of General Relativity
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm#News
14 Sep 2006 - Kramer et al. report on an analysis of 2.5 years of timing
data on the double pulsar in a paper published in Science Express (subscription)
online on 14 Sep 2006. The printed version will appear in Science. The neutron
stars masses are now 1.3381 +/- 0.0007 and 1.2489 +/- 0.0007 solar masses. Four
post-Keplerian parameters of the binary are determined and all agree with GR, to
accuracies of 0.3 +/- 1.4%, 0.36 +/- 0.68%, 0.013 +/- 0.05%, and 0.9 +/- 0.55%.
Do we even know the mass of the sun to 4 significant figures?
See: http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0609417
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Four Precise Tests of General Relativity |
03 Oct 2006 08:54:35 AM |
|
|
Eric Gisse wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote:
Four Precise Tests of General Relativity
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm#News
14 Sep 2006 - Kramer et al. report on an analysis of 2.5 years of timing
data on the double pulsar in a paper published in Science Express (subscription)
online on 14 Sep 2006. The printed version will appear in Science. The neutron
stars masses are now 1.3381 +/- 0.0007 and 1.2489 +/- 0.0007 solar masses. Four
post-Keplerian parameters of the binary are determined and all agree with GR, to
accuracies of 0.3 +/- 1.4%, 0.36 +/- 0.68%, 0.013 +/- 0.05%, and 0.9 +/- 0.55%.
Do we even know the mass of the sun to 4 significant figures?
See: http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0609417
1.98892 × 10^30 kilograms
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: Four Precise Tests of General Relativity |
03 Oct 2006 03:49:38 PM |
|
|
Sam Wormley wrote:
Eric Gisse wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote:
Four Precise Tests of General Relativity
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm#News
14 Sep 2006 - Kramer et al. report on an analysis of 2.5 years of timi=
ng
data on the double pulsar in a paper published in Science Express (sub=
scription)
online on 14 Sep 2006. The printed version will appear in Science. The=
neutron
stars masses are now 1.3381 +/- 0.0007 and 1.2489 +/- 0.0007 solar mas=
ses. Four
post-Keplerian parameters of the binary are determined and all agree w=
ith GR, to
accuracies of 0.3 +/- 1.4%, 0.36 +/- 0.68%, 0.013 +/- 0.05%, and 0.9 +=
/- 0.55%.
Do we even know the mass of the sun to 4 significant figures?
See: http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0609417
1.98892 =D7 10^30 kilograms
Reference?
I'm not being pedantic for the sake of it. I just haven't seen an
actual paper where folks measure the sun's mass. I have always seen it
given as-is without error bars or literature citations.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bruce Scott TOK" |
|
| Title: Re: Four Precise Tests of General Relativity |
04 Oct 2006 10:45:13 AM |
|
|
1.98892 × 10^30 kilograms
Reference?
I'm not being pedantic for the sake of it. I just haven't seen an
actual paper where folks measure the sun's mass. I have always seen it
given as-is without error bars or literature citations.
I think we known GM much better than M. At least that's true for the
Earth.
--
ciao,
Bruce
drift wave turbulence: http://www.rzg.mpg.de/~bds/
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Four Precise Tests of General Relativity |
04 Oct 2006 05:14:05 PM |
|
|
In article <200610041545.k94FjDpH028188@ipp.mpg.de>, Bruce Scott TOK <Use-Author-Supplied-Address-Header@[127.1]> writes:
1.98892 × 10^30 kilograms
Reference?
I'm not being pedantic for the sake of it. I just haven't seen an
actual paper where folks measure the sun's mass. I have always seen it
given as-is without error bars or literature citations.
I think we known GM much better than M. At least that's true for the
Earth.
For any celestial body, to my knowledge.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: Four Precise Tests of General Relativity |
04 Oct 2006 06:02:20 PM |
|
|
wrote:
In article <200610041545.k94FjDpH028188@ipp.mpg.de>, Bruce Scott TOK <Use=
-Author-Supplied-Address-Header@[127.1]> writes:
1.98892 =D7 10^30 kilograms
Reference?
I'm not being pedantic for the sake of it. I just haven't seen an
actual paper where folks measure the sun's mass. I have always seen it
given as-is without error bars or literature citations.
I think we known GM much better than M. At least that's true for the
Earth.
For any celestial body, to my knowledge.
Ah.
Well we only know G to 4 or 5 decimal places depending who you ask, so
if we know GM to a precision further out than that, we are limited by
G=2E
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Four Precise Tests of General Relativity |
04 Oct 2006 10:27:59 PM |
|
|
In article <1160002940.636199.171370@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, "Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi@gmail.com> writes:
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
In article <200610041545.k94FjDpH028188@ipp.mpg.de>, Bruce Scott TOK <Use=
-Author-Supplied-Address-Header@[127.1]> writes:
1.98892 =D7 10^30 kilograms
Reference?
I'm not being pedantic for the sake of it. I just haven't seen an
actual paper where folks measure the sun's mass. I have always seen it
given as-is without error bars or literature citations.
I think we known GM much better than M. At least that's true for the
Earth.
For any celestial body, to my knowledge.
Ah.
Well we only know G to 4 or 5 decimal places depending who you ask, so
if we know GM to a precision further out than that, we are limited by
G=2E
That's exactly true. Now, GM can be determined with very high
precision, through astronomical observations. When you observe a
periodic phenomenon, your accuracy, in principle, is limited only by
the time of the measurement. But, as you say, G is not known very
precisely, so...
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Four Precise Tests of General Relativity |
03 Oct 2006 05:01:55 PM |
|
|
Eric Gisse wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote:
Eric Gisse wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote:
Four Precise Tests of General Relativity
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm#News
14 Sep 2006 - Kramer et al. report on an analysis of 2.5 years of timing
data on the double pulsar in a paper published in Science Express (subscription)
online on 14 Sep 2006. The printed version will appear in Science. The neutron
stars masses are now 1.3381 +/- 0.0007 and 1.2489 +/- 0.0007 solar masses. Four
post-Keplerian parameters of the binary are determined and all agree with GR, to
accuracies of 0.3 +/- 1.4%, 0.36 +/- 0.68%, 0.013 +/- 0.05%, and 0.9 +/- 0.55%.
Do we even know the mass of the sun to 4 significant figures?
See: http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0609417
1.98892 × 10^30 kilograms
Reference?
I'm not being pedantic for the sake of it. I just haven't seen an
actual paper where folks measure the sun's mass. I have always seen it
given as-is without error bars or literature citations.
Sorry Eric, quickly, I couldn't track down the source of the number
1.98892 × 10^30 kilograms. Cox, "Allen's Astrophysical Quantities",
4th ed., AIP (1999) uses 1.9891 × 10^30 kilograms for the mass of
the Sun. I'll keep looking.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hero" |
|
| Title: Re: Four Precise Tests of General Relativity |
04 Oct 2006 12:41:23 PM |
|
|
Sam Wormley schrieb:
1.98892 =D7 10^30 kilograms
Reference?
I'm not being pedantic for the sake of it. I just haven't seen an
actual paper where folks measure the sun's mass. I have always seen it
given as-is without error bars or literature citations.
Sorry Eric, quickly, I couldn't track down the source of the number
1.98892 =D7 10^30 kilograms. Cox, "Allen's Astrophysical Quantities",
4th ed., AIP (1999) uses 1.9891 =D7 10^30 kilograms for the mass of
the Sun. I'll keep looking.
Wasn't it Keplers third law, with which it was calculated?
Hero
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Four Precise Tests of General Relativity |
04 Oct 2006 12:45:24 PM |
|
|
Hero wrote:
Sam Wormley schrieb:
1.98892 × 10^30 kilograms
Reference?
I'm not being pedantic for the sake of it. I just haven't seen an
actual paper where folks measure the sun's mass. I have always seen it
given as-is without error bars or literature citations.
Sorry Eric, quickly, I couldn't track down the source of the number
1.98892 × 10^30 kilograms. Cox, "Allen's Astrophysical Quantities",
4th ed., AIP (1999) uses 1.9891 × 10^30 kilograms for the mass of
the Sun. I'll keep looking.
Wasn't it Keplers third law, with which it was calculated?
Hero
Kepler's third law works, but to no better significance than is
known the Mass of the Earth and the Gravitational Constant.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: Four Precise Tests of General Relativity |
04 Oct 2006 05:44:18 PM |
|
|
Sam Wormley wrote:
Hero wrote:
Sam Wormley schrieb:
1.98892 × 10^30 kilograms
Reference?
I'm not being pedantic for the sake of it. I just haven't seen an
actual paper where folks measure the sun's mass. I have always seen it
given as-is without error bars or literature citations.
Sorry Eric, quickly, I couldn't track down the source of the number
1.98892 × 10^30 kilograms. Cox, "Allen's Astrophysical Quantities",
4th ed., AIP (1999) uses 1.9891 × 10^30 kilograms for the mass of
the Sun. I'll keep looking.
Wasn't it Keplers third law, with which it was calculated?
Hero
Kepler's third law works, but to no better significance than is
known the Mass of the Earth and the Gravitational Constant.
http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/?constants
GM(sun) = 1.32712440·10^20 m^3/sec^2
Pick any Big G you like.
The product is useful but M(sun) is not.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz3.pdf
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sorcerer" |
|
| Title: Re: Four Precise Tests of General Relativity |
04 Oct 2006 06:09:51 PM |
|
|
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:45243942.1F8905EA@hate.spam.net...
[snip crap]
You are in the river of *****! FOaD!
BTW, you *****-faced baboon, "(c+v) appears somewhere in the paper, and could
it. Hey Uncle Carbuncle, you are an ineducable idiot. Your high
school should be leveled and replaced by an abandoned bowling alley.
Androcles.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
