| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Bhushit Joshipura" |
| Date: |
22 Mar 2007 07:42:14 AM |
| Object: |
Layman's question about Gravitational waves |
I am not a physicist. I know a bit of Electromagnetic wave
propagation.
I went through gravitational waves description on Wikipedia (where
else?). I could understand that "change in mass distribution over
space over time causes gravity to change" - this is gravitational
wave. In other words, information about mass can be detected through
gravitational waves.
Now the question. Can these waves be refracted? [Wikipedia says they
can't be scattered. I don't know whether scattering has anything to do
with refraction.]
If they can, there can also be a total internal reflection under some
circumstances.
Across the membranes having total internal reflection, changes in
distribution of mass over space and time just might not affect the
other side under suitable circumstances!
Thus, we might be living in a single universe but parts of it might be
unaffected by gravitational changes in other parts.
Some possible answers:
1. Gravitational waves can not be refracted [or reflected or ...] and
I don't know
2. Total internal reflection is dictated by geometry. Geometry is a
property of space time. Gravitational waves are ripples in space time.
There exist a condition that prevents total internal reflection of
gravitational waves because they alter geometry in such a way
3. Such a condition actually exists and I don't know
Thanks in advance,
-Bhushit
.
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: Layman's question about Gravitational waves |
22 Mar 2007 10:41:43 AM |
|
|
Bhushit Joshipura wrote:
I am not a physicist. I know a bit of Electromagnetic wave
propagation.
I went through gravitational waves description on Wikipedia (where
else?). I could understand that "change in mass distribution over
space over time causes gravity to change" - this is gravitational
wave. In other words, information about mass can be detected through
gravitational waves.
EM sources are dipoles. Gravitational wave sources are quadrupoles.
Now the question. Can these waves be refracted? [Wikipedia says they
can't be scattered. I don't know whether scattering has anything to do
with refraction.]
If they can, there can also be a total internal reflection under some
circumstances.
It isn't a question of phenomenon as much as a question of amplitude.
You cannot get enough stuff within a volume of space to diddle
gravitational waves. Space implodes before you get there (black
holes).
Across the membranes having total internal reflection, changes in
distribution of mass over space and time just might not affect the
other side under suitable circumstances!
Thus, we might be living in a single universe but parts of it might be
unaffected by gravitational changes in other parts.
Gravitation waves are not gravitation. Either way, gravitation
propagates at lightspeed. Most of the visible universe is
gravitationally uncoupled, horizon to horizon.
[snip public embarrassment]
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
.
|
|
|
| User: "tadchem" |
|
| Title: Re: Layman's question about Gravitational waves |
23 Mar 2007 08:47:20 PM |
|
|
On Mar 22, 10:41 am, Uncle Al <Uncle...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
Bhushit Joshipura wrote:
I am not a physicist. I know a bit of Electromagnetic wave
propagation.
I went through gravitational waves description on Wikipedia (where
else?). I could understand that "change in mass distribution over
space over time causes gravity to change" - this is gravitational
wave. In other words, information about mass can be detected through
gravitational waves.
EM sources are dipoles. Gravitational wave sources are quadrupoles.
Now the question. Can these waves be refracted? [Wikipedia says they
can't be scattered. I don't know whether scattering has anything to do
with refraction.]
If they can, there can also be a total internal reflection under some
circumstances.
It isn't a question of phenomenon as much as a question of amplitude.
You cannot get enough stuff within a volume of space to diddle
gravitational waves. Space implodes before you get there (black
holes).
Across the membranes having total internal reflection, changes in
distribution of mass over space and time just might not affect the
other side under suitable circumstances!
Thus, we might be living in a single universe but parts of it might be
unaffected by gravitational changes in other parts.
Gravitation waves are not gravitation. Either way, gravitation
propagates at lightspeed. Most of the visible universe is
gravitationally uncoupled, horizon to horizon.
[snip public embarrassment]
--
Uncle Alhttp://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
Personally, Al, I subscribe to the notion that the tides are responses
of the earth to gravitational waves of low frequency generated by
rotating mass dipoles such as the sun-earth system or the earth-moon
system.
Problem is nobody wants to look for gravity waves in the microhertz
range.
Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Layman's question about Gravitational waves |
22 Mar 2007 07:55:45 AM |
|
|
Bhushit Joshipura wrote:
I am not a physicist. I know a bit of Electromagnetic wave
propagation.
I went through gravitational waves description on Wikipedia (where
else?). I could understand that "change in mass distribution over
space over time causes gravity to change" - this is gravitational
wave. In other words, information about mass can be detected through
gravitational waves.
Now the question. Can these waves be refracted? [Wikipedia says they
can't be scattered. I don't know whether scattering has anything to do
with refraction.]
Index of refraction for scalar, electromagnetic, and gravitational
waves in weak gravitational fields
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1974PhRvD...9.2207P
Gravitational Waves in Matter
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/klu/gerg/1997/00000029/00000001/00292800
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jan Panteltje" |
|
| Title: Re: Layman's question about Gravitational waves |
22 Mar 2007 08:56:13 AM |
|
|
On a sunny day (Thu, 22 Mar 2007 12:55:45 GMT) it happened Sam Wormley
<swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in <l1vMh.1748$oV.564@attbi_s21>:
Bhushit Joshipura wrote:
I am not a physicist. I know a bit of Electromagnetic wave
propagation.
I went through gravitational waves description on Wikipedia (where
else?). I could understand that "change in mass distribution over
space over time causes gravity to change" - this is gravitational
wave. In other words, information about mass can be detected through
gravitational waves.
Now the question. Can these waves be refracted? [Wikipedia says they
can't be scattered. I don't know whether scattering has anything to do
with refraction.]
Index of refraction for scalar, electromagnetic, and gravitational
waves in weak gravitational fields
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1974PhRvD...9.2207P
Gravitational Waves in Matter
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/klu/gerg/1997/00000029/00000001/00292800
GRAVITATIONAL WAVES HAVE NOT BEEN DIRECTLY DETECTED YET.
Can elves be refracted?
Are they edible?
Lets blurb on wikipedia about it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Layman's question about Gravitational waves |
22 Mar 2007 09:09:31 AM |
|
|
Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Thu, 22 Mar 2007 12:55:45 GMT) it happened Sam Wormley
<swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in <l1vMh.1748$oV.564@attbi_s21>:
Bhushit Joshipura wrote:
I am not a physicist. I know a bit of Electromagnetic wave
propagation.
I went through gravitational waves description on Wikipedia (where
else?). I could understand that "change in mass distribution over
space over time causes gravity to change" - this is gravitational
wave. In other words, information about mass can be detected through
gravitational waves.
Now the question. Can these waves be refracted? [Wikipedia says they
can't be scattered. I don't know whether scattering has anything to do
with refraction.]
Index of refraction for scalar, electromagnetic, and gravitational
waves in weak gravitational fields
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1974PhRvD...9.2207P
Gravitational Waves in Matter
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/klu/gerg/1997/00000029/00000001/00292800
GRAVITATIONAL WAVES HAVE NOT BEEN DIRECTLY DETECTED YET.
Can elves be refracted?
Are they edible?
Lets blurb on wikipedia about it.
So What! Verification came years after detailed predictions, such as
o gravitational bending of light by the sun
o orbital decay due to gravitational radiation
o positrons
o testing of Bell's theorem
o detection of Ws and Zs
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Layman's question about Gravitational waves |
22 Mar 2007 12:49:22 PM |
|
|
On Mar 22, 7:09 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Thu, 22 Mar 2007 12:55:45 GMT) it happened Sam Wormley
<sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote in <l1vMh.1748$oV.564@attbi_s21>:
Bhushit Joshipura wrote:
I am not a physicist. I know a bit of Electromagnetic wave
propagation.
I went through gravitational waves description on Wikipedia (where
else?). I could understand that "change in mass distribution over
space over time causes gravity to change" - this is gravitational
wave. In other words, information about mass can be detected through
gravitational waves.
Now the question. Can these waves be refracted? [Wikipedia says they
can't be scattered. I don't know whether scattering has anything to do
with refraction.]
Index of refraction for scalar, electromagnetic, and gravitational
waves in weak gravitational fields
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1974PhRvD...9.2207P
Gravitational Waves in Matter
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/klu/gerg/1997/00000029/00000001...
GRAVITATIONAL WAVES HAVE NOT BEEN DIRECTLY DETECTED YET.
Can elves be refracted?
Are they edible?
Lets blurb on wikipedia about it.
So What! Verification came years after detailed predictions, such as
So what? That's like saying Maxwell is vindicated by everything but
direct detection of EM waves, that's what!
o gravitational bending of light by the sun
That's a "gravitostatic" phenomenon. Nothing to do with waves.
o orbital decay due to gravitational radiation
Please point me to the detector that detected said waves.
o positrons
o testing of Bell's theorem
o detection of Ws and Zs
You damn well know better than that, Sam. Those are _inferences_,
not verifications.
AFAIK no direct detection has ever been managed, except possibly
Robert L. Forward's work with coupled pairs of his gravitational
gradient detectors; one driven, the other detecting the local
variations in the g gradient. Yet AFAIK nobody's been willing to call
that "generation and detection of gravitational waves". Why not?
Mark L. Fergerson
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Layman's question about Gravitational waves |
22 Mar 2007 01:46:10 PM |
|
|
wrote:
On Mar 22, 7:09 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
So What! Verification came years after detailed predictions, such as
So what? That's like saying Maxwell is vindicated by everything but
direct detection of EM waves, that's what!
o gravitational bending of light by the sun
That's a "gravitostatic" phenomenon. Nothing to do with waves.
o orbital decay due to gravitational radiation
Please point me to the detector that detected said waves.
o positrons
o testing of Bell's theorem
o detection of Ws and Zs
You damn well know better than that, Sam. Those are _inferences_,
not verifications.
Not really... many detailed predictions were made before verification
experimentally or observationally. Correlation of detected gravitational
waves with associated electromagnetic events, such as the merging of
neutron stars or black holes will likely happen. Science does make progress.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Layman's question about Gravitational waves |
22 Mar 2007 03:46:51 PM |
|
|
On Mar 22, 11:46 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
n...@bid.ness wrote:
On Mar 22, 7:09 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
So What! Verification came years after detailed predictions, such as
So what? That's like saying Maxwell is vindicated by everything but
direct detection of EM waves, that's what!
o gravitational bending of light by the sun
That's a "gravitostatic" phenomenon. Nothing to do with waves.
o orbital decay due to gravitational radiation
Please point me to the detector that detected said waves.
o positrons
o testing of Bell's theorem
o detection of Ws and Zs
You damn well know better than that, Sam. Those are _inferences_,
not verifications.
Not really... many detailed predictions were made before verification
experimentally or observationally. Correlation of detected gravitational
waves with associated electromagnetic events, such as the merging of
neutron stars or black holes will likely happen. Science does make progress.
Yes it does, but not by blithely assuming that its predictions are
correct without actually looking for them directly. A huge pile of
predictions, inferences and correlations does not negate a total lack
of predicted direct observations.
I'd still like a single cite showing that Weber-style detectors
(direct-resonant gravitational wave antennas) ever detected anything
above their design noise floor.
And again I ask you why Forward's work doesn't count?
Mark L. Fergerson
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Layman's question about Gravitational waves |
22 Mar 2007 04:20:42 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Yes it does, but not by blithely assuming that its predictions are
correct without actually looking for them directly. A huge pile of
predictions, inferences and correlations does not negate a total lack
of predicted direct observations.
I'd still like a single cite showing that Weber-style detectors
(direct-resonant gravitational wave antennas) ever detected anything
above their design noise floor.
And again I ask you why Forward's work doesn't count?
Mark L. Fergerson
"Gravitational waves offer a remarkable opportunity to see the universe
from a new perspective, providing access to astrophysical insights that
are available in no other way. The initial LIGO gravitational wave
detectors have started observations, and are already yielding data that
are being interpreted to establish new upper limits on
gravitational-wave flux.
"The sensitivity of the initial LIGO instruments is such that it is
perfectly possible that discoveries will be made. If they succeed,
there will be a strong demand from the community to improve the
sensitivity allowing more astrophysical information to be recovered
from the signals. If no discovery is made, there will be no lesser
urgency to improve the sensitivity of the instrument to the point where
there is a general consensus that gravitational waves will be detected
often and with a good signal-to-noise ratio. The development of the
next generation of instrument must be pursued aggressively to make the
transition from the initial to the Advanced detector in a timely way -
after the complete science run of the initial detector, but as quickly
as possible thereafter".
Keep going: http://www.ligo.caltech.edu/advLIGO/scripts/summary.shtml
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Layman's question about Gravitational waves |
22 Mar 2007 09:51:08 PM |
|
|
On Mar 22, 2:20 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
n...@bid.ness wrote:
Yes it does, but not by blithely assuming that its predictions are
correct without actually looking for them directly. A huge pile of
predictions, inferences and correlations does not negate a total lack
of predicted direct observations.
I'd still like a single cite showing that Weber-style detectors
(direct-resonant gravitational wave antennas) ever detected anything
above their design noise floor.
The following is an uncharacteristically generic non-answer that
I've already read, Sam-
"Gravitational waves offer a remarkable opportunity to see the universe
from a new perspective, providing access to astrophysical insights that
are available in no other way. The initial LIGO gravitational wave
detectors have started observations, and are already yielding data that
are being interpreted to establish new upper limits on
gravitational-wave flux.
IOW, they've seen nothing.
"The sensitivity of the initial LIGO instruments is such that it is
perfectly possible that discoveries will be made.
Yet, they've discovered a perfect nothing.
If they succeed,
there will be a strong demand from the community to improve the
sensitivity allowing more astrophysical information to be recovered
from the signals.
"If".
If no discovery is made, there will be no lesser
urgency to improve the sensitivity of the instrument to the point where
there is a general consensus that gravitational waves will be detected
often and with a good signal-to-noise ratio.
Throw more money at it? Introduce more bugger factors into the
equations?
How about suspecting there's something wrong with the theory or the
approach?
The development of the
next generation of instrument must be pursued aggressively to make the
transition from the initial to the Advanced detector in a timely way -
after the complete science run of the initial detector, but as quickly
as possible thereafter".
Feh. Advanced LIGO looks more and more like Advanced grantology.
Keep going:http://www.ligo.caltech.edu/advLIGO/scripts/summary.shtml
Yadda yadda blah blah. Weber's bar antennas were touted as the sine
qua non of gravitational wave detection. Why didn't they work?
If you don't know, just say so. I don't either. The idea makes
perfect sense to me but the Universe apparently disagrees.
If it was a matter of technological limitations of the era, what
were they? Haven't we gotten past those limits yet?
Oh, and this time you completely cut my reference to Forward. He
reproducibly detected, at specific frequencies, the motion of a few
kilograms at distances of a dozen meters. Why doesn't that qualify as
gravitational wave transmission and reception?
You avoid direct answers and instead cut-and-paste articles I've
already read, Sam. You act more and more like a "science reporter"
than a "scientist". What's up with that?
Mark L. Fergerson
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Layman's question about Gravitational waves |
22 Mar 2007 10:41:32 PM |
|
|
wrote:
On Mar 22, 2:20 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
n...@bid.ness wrote:
Keep going:http://www.ligo.caltech.edu/advLIGO/scripts/summary.shtml
Yadda yadda blah blah. Weber's bar antennas were touted as the sine
qua non of gravitational wave detection. Why didn't they work?
Weber's apparatus wasn't sensitive enough, don't you suspect?
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Layman's question about Gravitational waves |
23 Mar 2007 12:49:28 AM |
|
|
On Mar 22, 8:41 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
n...@bid.ness wrote:
On Mar 22, 2:20 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
n...@bid.ness wrote:
Keep going:http://www.ligo.caltech.edu/advLIGO/scripts/summary.shtml
Yadda yadda blah blah. Weber's bar antennas were touted as the sine
qua non of gravitational wave detection. Why didn't they work?
Weber's apparatus wasn't sensitive enough, don't you suspect?
I believe you don't know what you're talking about.
http://www.cardiff.ac.uk/schoolsanddivisions/academicschools/socsi/staff/acad/collins/gravwave/text5.html
And I'm supposed to have any faith at all in LIGO or LISA? HAH!
Mark L. Fergerson
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Layman's question about Gravitational waves |
23 Mar 2007 11:32:33 AM |
|
|
wrote:
On Mar 22, 8:41 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
Weber's apparatus wasn't sensitive enough, don't you suspect?
I believe you don't know what you're talking about.
http://www.cardiff.ac.uk/schoolsanddivisions/academicschools/socsi/staff/acad/collins/gravwave/text5.html
And I'm supposed to have any faith at all in LIGO or LISA? HAH!
Faith is for religions... In science one looks at data, its publication
in research papers and the case made for spending tens of millions of
dollars to do gravity wave research. The conclusive result which might
convince you may be sitting on the hard drives as we speak.
Did you keep going, Mark?
http://www.ligo.caltech.edu/advLIGO/scripts/summary.shtml
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Layman's question about Gravitational waves |
23 Mar 2007 05:31:56 PM |
|
|
On Mar 23, 9:32 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
n...@bid.ness wrote:
On Mar 22, 8:41 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
Weber's apparatus wasn't sensitive enough, don't you suspect?
I believe you don't know what you're talking about.
http://www.cardiff.ac.uk/schoolsanddivisions/academicschools/socsi/st...
And I'm supposed to have any faith at all in LIGO or LISA? HAH!
Faith is for religions... In science one looks at data, its publication
in research papers and the case made for spending tens of millions of
dollars to do gravity wave research. The conclusive result which might
convince you may be sitting on the hard drives as we speak.
Did you keep going, Mark?
http://www.ligo.caltech.edu/advLIGO/scripts/summary.shtml
Read it to the end. Not impressed. Did you even bother reading the
link I cited to _its_ end, or did you just "react" again?
Mark L. Fergerson
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Layman's question about Gravitational waves |
24 Mar 2007 12:45:19 AM |
|
|
wrote:
On Mar 23, 9:32 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
n...@bid.ness wrote:
On Mar 22, 8:41 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
Weber's apparatus wasn't sensitive enough, don't you suspect?
I believe you don't know what you're talking about.
http://www.cardiff.ac.uk/schoolsanddivisions/academicschools/socsi/st...
And I'm supposed to have any faith at all in LIGO or LISA? HAH!
Faith is for religions... In science one looks at data, its publication
in research papers and the case made for spending tens of millions of
dollars to do gravity wave research. The conclusive result which might
convince you may be sitting on the hard drives as we speak.
Did you keep going, Mark?
http://www.ligo.caltech.edu/advLIGO/scripts/summary.shtml
Read it to the end. Not impressed. Did you even bother reading the
link I cited to _its_ end, or did you just "react" again?
Mark L. Fergerson
I read the paper and can't agree with the author.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "malibu" |
|
| Title: Re: Layman's question about Gravitational waves |
22 Mar 2007 09:25:13 AM |
|
|
On Mar 22, 8:09 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Thu, 22 Mar 2007 12:55:45 GMT) it happened Sam Wormley
<sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote in <l1vMh.1748$oV.564@attbi_s21>:
Bhushit Joshipura wrote:
I am not a physicist. I know a bit of Electromagnetic wave
propagation.
I went through gravitational waves description on Wikipedia (where
else?). I could understand that "change in mass distribution over
space over time causes gravity to change" - this is gravitational
wave. In other words, information about mass can be detected through
gravitational waves.
Now the question. Can these waves be refracted? [Wikipedia says they
can't be scattered. I don't know whether scattering has anything to do
with refraction.]
Index of refraction for scalar, electromagnetic, and gravitational
waves in weak gravitational fields
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1974PhRvD...9.2207P
Gravitational Waves in Matter
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/klu/gerg/1997/00000029/00000001...
GRAVITATIONAL WAVES HAVE NOT BEEN DIRECTLY DETECTED YET.
Can elves be refracted?
Are they edible?
Lets blurb on wikipedia about it.
So What! Verification came years after detailed predictions, such as
o gravitational bending of light by the sun
o orbital decay due to gravitational radiation
o positrons
o testing of Bell's theorem
o detection of Ws and Zs
mmm yes
SO much progress on understanding gravity!!!
What is doing the waving, Sam?
Gravitons travelling outward yet exerting force
inward?
Isn't this supposed to involve virtual particles
travelling backward in Time?
Wow! Lots of nifty, nonsensical ideas.
Sounds like QM.
John
Galaxy Model for the Atom
http://users.accesscomm.ca/john
My newest animation- what I call a
twelve o'clock neutrino:
http://users.accesscomm.ca/john/neutrino.GIF
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Layman's question about Gravitational waves |
22 Mar 2007 10:01:13 AM |
|
|
malibu wrote:
On Mar 22, 8:09 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Thu, 22 Mar 2007 12:55:45 GMT) it happened Sam Wormley
<sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote in <l1vMh.1748$oV.564@attbi_s21>:
Bhushit Joshipura wrote:
I am not a physicist. I know a bit of Electromagnetic wave
propagation.
I went through gravitational waves description on Wikipedia (where
else?). I could understand that "change in mass distribution over
space over time causes gravity to change" - this is gravitational
wave. In other words, information about mass can be detected through
gravitational waves.
Now the question. Can these waves be refracted? [Wikipedia says they
can't be scattered. I don't know whether scattering has anything to do
with refraction.]
Index of refraction for scalar, electromagnetic, and gravitational
waves in weak gravitational fields
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1974PhRvD...9.2207P
Gravitational Waves in Matter
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/klu/gerg/1997/00000029/00000001...
GRAVITATIONAL WAVES HAVE NOT BEEN DIRECTLY DETECTED YET.
Can elves be refracted?
Are they edible?
Lets blurb on wikipedia about it.
So What! Verification came years after detailed predictions, such as
o gravitational bending of light by the sun
o orbital decay due to gravitational radiation
o positrons
o testing of Bell's theorem
o detection of Ws and Zs
mmm yes
SO much progress on understanding gravity!!!
What is doing the waving, Sam?
Gravitons travelling outward yet exerting force
inward?
Isn't this supposed to involve virtual particles
travelling backward in Time?
Wow! Lots of nifty, nonsensical ideas.
Sounds like QM.
John
John, you don't like any of modern physics, relativity or the quantum
mechanics, I presume. You would have been happier three hundred years
ago... except you would probably be bitching about the calculus.
.
|
|
|
| User: "malibu" |
|
| Title: Re: Layman's question about Gravitational waves |
22 Mar 2007 12:17:19 PM |
|
|
On Mar 22, 9:01 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
malibu wrote:
On Mar 22, 8:09 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Thu, 22 Mar 2007 12:55:45 GMT) it happened Sam Wormley
<sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote in <l1vMh.1748$oV.564@attbi_s21>:
Bhushit Joshipura wrote:
I am not a physicist. I know a bit of Electromagnetic wave
propagation.
I went through gravitational waves description on Wikipedia (where
else?). I could understand that "change in mass distribution over
space over time causes gravity to change" - this is gravitational
wave. In other words, information about mass can be detected through
gravitational waves.
Now the question. Can these waves be refracted? [Wikipedia says they
can't be scattered. I don't know whether scattering has anything to do
with refraction.]
Index of refraction for scalar, electromagnetic, and gravitational
waves in weak gravitational fields
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1974PhRvD...9.2207P
Gravitational Waves in Matter
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/klu/gerg/1997/00000029/00000001...
GRAVITATIONAL WAVES HAVE NOT BEEN DIRECTLY DETECTED YET.
Can elves be refracted?
Are they edible?
Lets blurb on wikipedia about it.
So What! Verification came years after detailed predictions, such as
o gravitational bending of light by the sun
o orbital decay due to gravitational radiation
o positrons
o testing of Bell's theorem
o detection of Ws and Zs
mmm yes
SO much progress on understanding gravity!!!
What is doing the waving, Sam?
Gravitons travelling outward yet exerting force
inward?
Isn't this supposed to involve virtual particles
travelling backward in Time?
Wow! Lots of nifty, nonsensical ideas.
Sounds like QM.
John
John, you don't like any of modern physics, relativity or the quantum
mechanics, I presume. You would have been happier three hundred years
ago... except you would probably be bitching about the calculus.
Hmmm.
The Calculus I like.
Gravity theory I don't. It leads
to conundrums, paradoxes, nonsensical
conclusions like the Black Hole and
Dark Matter.
Whenever a thought process leads you to
a paradox .....................dump it.
John
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Layman's question about Gravitational waves |
22 Mar 2007 12:28:20 PM |
|
|
malibu wrote:
The Calculus I like.
Gravity theory I don't. It leads
to conundrums, paradoxes, nonsensical
conclusions like the Black Hole and
Dark Matter.
Whenever a thought process leads you to
a paradox .....................dump it.
That's when science gets interesting!
.
|
|
|
| User: "malibu" |
|
| Title: Re: Layman's question about Gravitational waves |
22 Mar 2007 02:57:58 PM |
|
|
On Mar 22, 11:28 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
malibu wrote:
The Calculus I like.
Gravity theory I don't. It leads
to conundrums, paradoxes, nonsensical
conclusions like the Black Hole and
Dark Matter.
Whenever a thought process leads you to
a paradox .....................dump it.
That's when science gets interesting!
It's also interesting to imagine fictional entities
like Superman or vampires. It's no longer Science
then- it's a cult. And when others question the
beliefs of a cult based on observation, pictures,
video, etc, the answer is usually that they are
infidels, quacks, kooks, or they are hoaxers trying
to make a buck.
Black Holes are not science- they are a paradox
that arises when one takes suck gravity to
its extreme.
Dark Matter is not science- it is a bandage applied
so observations of galactic rotation curves did not
take down our gravity theory (which they should have).
Science is open-minded people that respond to
observations by trained professionals like
airplane pilots reporting UFOs by engaging- not by
dismissing because its not part of their
fucking BELIEF SYSTEM.
Our gravity theory is WRONG. Gravity
doesn't suck. Is the whirlpool downstream
from the rock because the rock sucks?
No.
John
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jan Panteltje" |
|
| Title: Re: Layman's question about Gravitational waves |
22 Mar 2007 01:57:15 PM |
|
|
On a sunny day (Thu, 22 Mar 2007 14:09:31 GMT) it happened Sam Wormley
<swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in <v6wMh.1829$oV.1698@attbi_s21>:
Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Thu, 22 Mar 2007 12:55:45 GMT) it happened Sam Wormley
<swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in <l1vMh.1748$oV.564@attbi_s21>:
Bhushit Joshipura wrote:
I am not a physicist. I know a bit of Electromagnetic wave
propagation.
I went through gravitational waves description on Wikipedia (where
else?). I could understand that "change in mass distribution over
space over time causes gravity to change" - this is gravitational
wave. In other words, information about mass can be detected through
gravitational waves.
Now the question. Can these waves be refracted? [Wikipedia says they
can't be scattered. I don't know whether scattering has anything to do
with refraction.]
Index of refraction for scalar, electromagnetic, and gravitational
waves in weak gravitational fields
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1974PhRvD...9.2207P
Gravitational Waves in Matter
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/klu/gerg/1997/00000029/00000001/00292800
GRAVITATIONAL WAVES HAVE NOT BEEN DIRECTLY DETECTED YET.
Can elves be refracted?
Are they edible?
Lets blurb on wikipedia about it.
So What! Verification came years after detailed predictions, such as
o gravitational bending of light by the sun
Nothing to do with gravitational _waves_
o orbital decay due to gravitational radiation
_Could_ be explained by a model that proposes gravitational waves, bu talso
by above elves pulling at it.
neitehr have been detected directly, much has been written about both.
o positrons
Sorry, explain please.
o testing of Bell's theorem
Now we are talking QM, and I do not see Bell theorem as relevant to gravitational waves.
o detection of Ws and Zs
????
Sorry, I do not know everything about particle physics, but realy why are they still looking
in LIGO?
Seems a bit of a mishap there.
Well, so is ITER.
LOL
The only theory any wat relevant ot gravity for me is still a Le Saga sort of particle.
Although that would have to have some really special properties.
But I can explain a lot more and so far my prediction have hold 100%.
From the ever faster expanding universe to LIGOs' zero result.
But, if you are in to that, I am willing to discus the possibility of Elves too.
So _until_ you detect those 'gravitational waves' directly, and ANY prediction so far
(in math using current physics) has come up magnitudes to high it seems, else this
LIGO should never have been build, I ssuggest you remai nsilent on the issue.
Not detected directly = not existing for science.
There are more possiblities, not only Elves, aliens could play with us.....
Not detected yet... likely to exist.......
LOL
Show me your proof, else is is all blurb.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Layman's question about Gravitational waves |
22 Mar 2007 02:51:14 PM |
|
|
Jan Panteltje wrote:
So _until_ you detect those 'gravitational waves' directly, and ANY prediction so far
(in math using current physics) has come up magnitudes to high it seems, else this
LIGO should never have been build, I ssuggest you remai nsilent on the issue.
Not detected directly = not existing for science.
There are more possiblities, not only Elves, aliens could play with us.....
Not detected yet... likely to exist.......
LOL
"Gravitational waves offer a remarkable opportunity to see the universe
from a new perspective, providing access to astrophysical insights that
are available in no other way. The initial LIGO gravitational wave
detectors have started observations, and are already yielding data that
are being interpreted to establish new upper limits on
gravitational-wave flux.
"The sensitivity of the initial LIGO instruments is such that it is
perfectly possible that discoveries will be made. If they succeed,
there will be a strong demand from the community to improve the
sensitivity allowing more astrophysical information to be recovered
from the signals. If no discovery is made, there will be no lesser
urgency to improve the sensitivity of the instrument to the point where
there is a general consensus that gravitational waves will be detected
often and with a good signal-to-noise ratio. The development of the
next generation of instrument must be pursued aggressively to make the
transition from the initial to the Advanced detector in a timely way -
after the complete science run of the initial detector, but as quickly
as possible thereafter".
Keep going: http://www.ligo.caltech.edu/advLIGO/scripts/summary.shtml
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jan Panteltje" |
|
| Title: Re: Layman's question about Gravitational waves |
23 Mar 2007 05:52:10 AM |
|
|
On a sunny day (Thu, 22 Mar 2007 19:51:14 GMT) it happened Sam Wormley
<swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in <S6BMh.1997$_c5.67@attbi_s22>:
Jan Panteltje wrote:
So _until_ you detect those 'gravitational waves' directly, and ANY prediction so far
(in math using current physics) has come up magnitudes to high it seems, else this
LIGO should never have been build, I ssuggest you remai nsilent on the issue.
Not detected directly = not existing for science.
There are more possiblities, not only Elves, aliens could play with us.....
Not detected yet... likely to exist.......
LOL
"Gravitational waves offer a remarkable opportunity to see the universe
from a new perspective, providing access to astrophysical insights that
are available in no other way. The initial LIGO gravitational wave
detectors have started observations, and are already yielding data that
are being interpreted to establish new upper limits on
gravitational-wave flux.
Sam, I have read these statements, this is what I refer to as 'blurbs'.
Maybe, just maybe, some day people will see that blindly following the idea
of some person known as Albert E. who _proposed_ that because of orbiting
decays of some planet or other heavenly objects 'the energy must be radiated
away in the form of gravity waves' just _MIGHT_ be a bit over-simplistic.
I am pretty familiar with waves and their behaviour, at least EM and sound waves,
and his idea just does not fit right with gravity.
For the record here some thought I had that many here will flip over on....
In case of a Le Saga like particle, that very likely would have to be FTL,
I already proposed years ago in this group, that those particles could originate in stars.
If so, then they would 'push the universe apart'.
But now for an interesting aspect:
*IF LE Saga PARTICLES ARE FTL THEN THESE CAN ALSO ORIGINATE FROM BLACK HOLES.*
This because the escape speed for light creates the [EM] event horizon, and for a Le Saga
FTL particle there would be no event horizon, or a different 'mass' where it would occur.
It seems to me that when so much mass is concentrated in such a small space as a BH, it
would be rather strange if _nothing_ happened.
All of physics tells us: the more pressure, the more happens.
So although the black hole may _look_ black to us in the EM spectrum,
maybe loads and loads of these LS particles come out all the time.
Now contrary to Albert E.s' theory, I would look here, after all
every experiment, and his 30 years of dreaming about it, never did lift the veil of
gravity.
In short, you are on the wrong path with 'gravitational waves'.
"The sensitivity of the initial LIGO instruments is such that it is
perfectly possible that discoveries will be made.
It was originally expected that the events it was looking for would be detected within
past < detection_moment <now.
They found nothing, and sensitivity is being, or has already been increased.
So either the original math (Using Albert E.s' ideas) was wrong, or his ideas were
wrong, or all these publications of finding more and more black holes all over the place,
as just last week, are wrong.
If they succeed,
Give it up.
Look the other way, there is nothing the way you look now.
It was even Albert E. himself who stated: 'An idiot is somebody who repeats the same experiment
over and over again expecting a different result.'
After that he set out _thinking gravity waves_ (alias rela tit vitty) for 30 years.
OK, I am over-doing this a bit, just sitting here after the shower my hair drying.
No Albert E. look for me.
Sam, I hope you got something out of this :-)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Layman's question about Gravitational waves |
23 Mar 2007 11:39:23 AM |
|
|
Jan Panteltje wrote:
Sam, I have read these statements, this is what I refer to as 'blurbs'.
Maybe, just maybe, some day people will see that blindly following the idea
of some person known as Albert E. who _proposed_ that because of orbiting
decays of some planet or other heavenly objects 'the energy must be radiated
away in the form of gravity waves' just _MIGHT_ be a bit over-simplistic.
I am pretty familiar with waves and their behaviour, at least EM and sound waves,
and his idea just does not fit right with gravity.
How familiar, Jan, are you with quadrupolar waves?
For the record here some thought I had that many here will flip over on....
In case of a Le Saga like particle, that very likely would have to be FTL,
I already proposed years ago in this group, that those particles could originate in stars.
If so, then they would 'push the universe apart'.
But now for an interesting aspect:
*IF LE Saga PARTICLES ARE FTL THEN THESE CAN ALSO ORIGINATE FROM BLACK HOLES.*
This because the escape speed for light creates the [EM] event horizon, and for a Le Saga
FTL particle there would be no event horizon, or a different 'mass' where it would occur.
It seems to me that when so much mass is concentrated in such a small space as a BH, it
would be rather strange if _nothing_ happened.
All of physics tells us: the more pressure, the more happens.
So although the black hole may _look_ black to us in the EM spectrum,
maybe loads and loads of these LS particles come out all the time.
Now contrary to Albert E.s' theory, I would look here, after all
every experiment, and his 30 years of dreaming about it, never did lift the veil of
gravity.
In short, you are on the wrong path with 'gravitational waves'.
Give it up.
Look the other way, there is nothing the way you look now.
It was even Albert E. himself who stated: 'An idiot is somebody who repeats the same experiment
over and over again expecting a different result.'
After that he set out _thinking gravity waves_ (alias rela tit vitty) for 30 years.
OK, I am over-doing this a bit, just sitting here after the shower my hair drying.
No Albert E. look for me.
Sam, I hope you got something out of this :-)
Thanks for attempting to *square me away*, Jan. Time will tell. :-)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "G=EMC^2 Glazier" |
|
| Title: Re: Layman's question about Gravitational waves |
23 Mar 2007 07:04:59 AM |
|
|
Sam Have spent all my life thinking of gravity. I see gravity as a
much more complex force than the other three. Stars galaxies planets are
not the only force of gravity. There is energy in a gravitational
field,and this energy produces an additional gravitational force. (round
and round she goes) One could easily say "gravity gravitates" Sam I
have a theory that the other three forces were created from the force of
gravity. Bert
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Layman's question about Gravitational waves |
23 Mar 2007 11:35:05 AM |
|
|
G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:
Sam Have spent all my life thinking of gravity. I see gravity as a
much more complex force than the other three. Stars galaxies planets are
not the only force of gravity. There is energy in a gravitational
field,and this energy produces an additional gravitational force. (round
and round she goes) One could easily say "gravity gravitates" Sam I
have a theory that the other three forces were created from the force of
gravity. Bert
To date, the best minds working on unification have little to show for
their efforts, Herb.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "=?UTF-8?Q?Jeff=E2=80=A6Relf?=" |
|
| Title: The cosmos gets " spent ", in our opinion. |
23 Mar 2007 09:21:31 PM |
|
|
Hi Bert, We pick the best models for the task at hand.
Even if we could model magnetic fields using G.R. we wouldn't want to.
As I recently told T.J...
The known Universe has never had a center of gravity.
Physically, there's nothing special about
the 13.7 gigayears of " cosmic time " we know about.
The Cosmic Microwave Background that we see today came from
a place that is, as we speak, 45 Giga_Light_Years away
and it's getting ever more distant as the cosmos gets " spent ".
See " The Cosmic Symphony ", Scientific American, February 2004,
at " news:Jeff_Relf_2006_Dec_17_7_@Cotse.NET ".
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Eagleson" |
|
| Title: Re: Layman's question about Gravitational waves |
22 Mar 2007 09:29:41 AM |
|
|
On Mar 22, 8:42 am, "Bhushit Joshipura" <joship...@gmail.com> wrote:
I am not a physicist. I know a bit of Electromagnetic wave
propagation.
I went through gravitational waves description on Wikipedia (where
else?). I could understand that "change in mass distribution over
space over time causes gravity to change" - this is gravitational
wave. In other words, information about mass can be detected through
gravitational waves.
Now the question. Can these waves be refracted? [Wikipedia says they
can't be scattered. I don't know whether scattering has anything to do
with refraction.]
If they can, there can also be a total internal reflection under some
circumstances.
Across the membranes having total internal reflection, changes in
distribution of mass over space and time just might not affect the
other side under suitable circumstances!
Thus, we might be living in a single universe but parts of it might be
unaffected by gravitational changes in other parts.
Some possible answers:
1. Gravitational waves can not be refracted [or reflected or ...] and
I don't know
2. Total internal reflection is dictated by geometry. Geometry is a
property of space time. Gravitational waves are ripples in space time.
There exist a condition that prevents total internal reflection of
gravitational waves because they alter geometry in such a way
3. Such a condition actually exists and I don't know
Thanks in advance,
-Bhushit
LIGo the gravity wave detector was supposed to see them. Some say
that the theory was not correct, so it never saw the waves.
I posted a true wave device. A single liter of helium can be seen by
LIGO.
Place a tube of liquid helium near the detector mass. Just get a
dewar, poor it all into th etube and run. You will make a transient
wave and get data. Dangerous world out there.
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
