Cosmic explosion, but no gravitational waves
Sam Wormley
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/32461
Physicists searching for gravitational waves with the LIGO detector
in the US have released their first major scientific result. But
instead of heralding the much-anticipated first direct detection of
these tiny ripples in space-time, the team announced that
gravitational waves did not appear to emanate from the source of a
gamma-ray burst detected last year. The LIGO team has used this
apparent absence of gravitational waves to gain further insight into
the origins of the dramatic astrophysical events that produce intense
bursts of gamma rays.
"I wish that the first major announcement were a detection of
gravitational waves, but this is not the primary goal of our
field," Kip Thorne of Caltech told physicsworld.com. Thorne, who
is a long-time member of the LIGO team, also said: "As I see it, that
goal is to open up the gravitational wave window onto the universe so
that we can explore poorly understood processes. The LIGO
non-observation is in that spirit."
Disturbances in space-time
Gravitational waves are predicted by Einstein\u2019s general theory
of relativity, in which gravity arises from the curvature of
space-time. The waves are oscillations of space-time that are
produced when a mass accelerates. However, despite strong indirect
evidence for their existence -- in particular from measurements
of the rate at which neutron stars in binary systems lose energy and
spiral towards one other (a result that earned Russell Hulse and Joe
Taylor the 1993 Nobel Prize for Physics) -- there is no direct
proof. This is partly because their amplitude is so small, with even
the most violent astrophysical events disturbing space-time by less
than one part in 10^22.
LIGO (the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-wave Observatory) is the
largest of several facilities designed to detect such disturbances.
It comprises two giant interferometers, one located at Hanford,
Washington state, and the other at Livingston in Louisiana. By
bouncing a laser off mirrors located at the ends of two 4::km-long
arms at right angles to one another, any changes in the relative
lengths of the arms caused by the passage of a gravity wave would
produce a characteristic interference pattern.
Crucially, LIGO's Hanford interferometer was in "science mode" on
February 1st last year, when several space telescopes registered a
short burst of gamma rays in the direction of the nearby Andromeda
galaxy.
First glimpsed 40 years ago, gamma-ray bursts (GRBs) are among the
most energetic and mysterious events in the universe. They come in
two broad types: "long", lasting between 2::s and a few minutes; and
"short", lasting from a few milliseconds to 2::s. In 2003 researchers
successfully traced the former to supernovae, but astrophysicists are
only beginning to understand the origins of short GRBs.
Colliding black holes
The leading candidate for the majority of short GRBs is the merger of
two ultra-dense objects such as neutron stars or black holes -
events that should also produce a burst of gravitational waves.
However, at a conference on GRBs held in Santa Fe last November, the
LIGO team announced that its interferometers had detected no such
signature at the time when "GRB070201" went off.
"We know that coalescing binary have to produce gravitational waves,"
says Jim Hough of Glasgow University , who is principle investigator
for the UK of the GEO600 gravitational wave detector based in
Hannover, Germany. "Therefore, either the source was not a coalescing
binary or there is some exotic situation where the gravitational
waves disappear into another dimension. The latter seems unlikely,
but would be very exciting of course!"
Other causes for the event, such as a "soft gamma ray repeater" (SGR)
or a binary merger from much further away, are now the most likely
contenders. However, Stan Woosley of the University of California at
Santa Cruz -- who was one of the first to link long-lived GRBs with
supernovae -- points out that the merger of neutron stars is excluded
only to the 90% level, which is not as tight as astrophysicists would
like. " If the event was indeed in Andromeda, it was likely a SGR.
The likelihood of two neutron stars merging in this nearby galaxy
while we happen to be watching is perhaps one in a million years ,"
he says. "However, the result is a technological tour de force which
illustrates the potential of co-ordinated gravity wave and gamma-ray
observations."
The result has recently been accepted for publication in the
Astrophysical Journal.
Jan Panteltje
<swor...@mchsi.com> wrote in <neDjj.303412$Fc.26135@attbi_s21>:
> "I wish that the first major announcement were a detection of
> gravitational waves,
No way :-)
> but this is not the primary goal of our
> field,"
Well, you'd have to be TOTALLY OF YOUR .... it is worse then Einsteinians.
So now it was NOT build to detect gravitational waves, now that it becomes
clear that it detects nothing, while it clearly should have.
> Kip Thorne of Caltech told physicsworld.com. Thorne, who
> is a long-time member of the LIGO team, also said: "As I see it, that
> goal is to open up the gravitational wave window onto the universe so
> that we can explore poorly understood processes.
They gambled on their graffity waves, they lost.
> The LIGO
> non-observation is in that spirit."
What spirit? Looking for ghosts LOL :-)
Thank you Sam for showing the abundance of false science and their
dumb escape manoeuvres...
Next we will perhaps hear:
'ITER never was designed to actually do fusion, it's main purpose
is to explore poorly understood processes'
I like the part 'poorly understood'..
The zillions spend, the minds deformed by Einsteinian crap,
just like the astrologers of the past making themselves important, and advising kings,
when to go into battle....
It is all illusion.
Physics is dead:
> "We know that coalescing binary have to produce gravitational waves,"
> says Jim Hough of Glasgow University , who is principle investigator
> for the UK of the GEO600 gravitational wave detector based in
> Hannover, Germany. "Therefore, either the source was not a coalescing
> binary
OK (or there ARE NO GRAFFITY WAVES, at least not the way LIGO expects those).
>or there is some exotic situation where the gravitational
> waves disappear into another dimension.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! the same dimension all the money went into that was put into LIGO,
and into poisoning brains with Einstein nonsense.
> The latter seems unlikely,
> but would be very exciting of course!"
Yawn.
Anybody see Peter Pan lately?
Eric Gisse
> On a sunny day (Thu, 17 Jan 2008 07:13:23 GMT) it happened Sam Wormley
>
> > "I wish that the first major announcement were a detection of
> > gravitational waves,
>
> No way :-)
>
> > but this is not the primary goal of our
> > field,"
>
> Well, you'd have to be TOTALLY OF YOUR .... it is worse then Einsteinians.
> So now it was NOT build to detect gravitational waves, now that it becomes
> clear that it detects nothing, while it clearly should have.
...assuming the GRB was formed by a neutron star merger. Since nothing
was detected, it probably wasn't.
After all these years of playing denier on this newsgroup, haven't you
yet figured out the importance of null results? I'm reasonably sure
you have had a rant or two that was centered around the Michelson-
Morely experiment.
If you want to cry and bitch about the nonexistence of gravitational
radiation, you will have to explain why binary systems decay as if
radiation is being emitted. Being a denier and saying it isn't
happening or that GR is wrong anyway is unconstructive and stupid.
[snip remaining crying]
srp...@gmail.com
They found NOTHING.
In normal society, which is funding this shit, this is named a major
scientific FAILURE.
Only in the physics community can such a non event be termed a major
scientific result.
André Michaud
Greg Neill
news:c7e381b9-2d57-448b...@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> They found NOTHING.
>
> In normal society, which is funding this shit, this is named a major
> scientific FAILURE.
>
> Only in the physics community can such a non event be termed a major
> scientific result.
Typical Michaud stupidity. The negative result indicates
that the monitored event was not what it was thought to
be. This is an important result for the people who
study these objects, allowing them to refine or select
among candidate physics models for the phenomena.
The archetypal experiment of this nature was the
Michelson-Morley interferometric null result for
the detection of the Earth's velocity through the
Luminiferous Aether; It did *not* show that
interferometers don't work.
Sam Wormley
I wonder what you, André, think is the "success" rate for scientific
observations and experiments! The real "successes" often come from
the unexpected. Null results are important in science!
Igor
> On a sunny day (Thu, 17 Jan 2008 07:13:23 GMT) it happened Sam Wormley
Your rant is pretty silly, considering that not just any cosmic event
can necessarily produce gravitational waves.
srp...@gmail.com
To me, a success for an experiment is showing something more at the
end of an experiment than at the beginning.
In this case, the net output is zero, just like all other
experiments
aimed at confirming so-called gravitational waves.
But I have no doubt that some day, common sense and basic logic will
again prevail in the community.
André Michaud
Eric Gisse
Exactly - we will keep searching for gravitational waves.
>
> André Michaud
Sam Wormley
Null results are extremely important in science.
Failure to detect aether wind was one of them!
Florian
> The archetypal experiment of this nature was the
> Michelson-Morley interferometric null result for
> the detection of the Earth's velocity through the
> Luminiferous Aether; It did *not* show that
> interferometers don't work.
Indeed, it showed that the aether is not static and immobile as it was
thought at the time but a dynamic superfluid:
--
Florian
"Toute vérité passe par trois phases. D'abord, elle est ridiculisée;
ensuite, elle rencontre une vive opposition avant d'être acceptée comme
une totale évidence" - Arthur Schopenhauer
greysky
a poorly understood process. There will be no success at understanding
gravity until the field model of gravitation is totally abandoned. A purely
quantum physical description of gravity is possible, and is conceptually
simple, but will never gain popularity until humanity turns it's back on
it's current love affair with fields and the assumption that a force must
necessairly have a field associated with it.
Greysky
www.allocations.cc
Learn how to build a FTL radio.
"Sam Wormley" <swor...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:neDjj.303412$Fc.26135@attbi_s21...
greysky
"Greg Neill" <gnei...@OVEsympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:478f8d64$0$14066$9a6e...@news.newshosting.com...
> <srp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:c7e381b9-2d57-448b...@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
>> They found NOTHING.
>>
>> In normal society, which is funding this shit, this is named a major
>> scientific FAILURE.
>>
>> Only in the physics community can such a non event be termed a major
>> scientific result.
>
> Typical Michaud stupidity. The negative result indicates
> that the monitored event was not what it was thought to
> be. This is an important result for the people who
> study these objects, allowing them to refine or select
> among candidate physics models for the phenomena.
>
This null result is successful because it allows us to keep pulling crazy
theories out of our asses. I will never admit that the entire theoretical
construct grandly cobbled together by esteemed luminaries in physics since
the time of Newton could be just plain wrong. If at first we don't succeed,
we will try, try, try again, until the funding runs out (which will be
never).
> The archetypal experiment of this nature was the
> Michelson-Morley interferometric null result for
> the detection of the Earth's velocity through the
> Luminiferous Aether; It did *not* show that
> interferometers don't work.
>
>
Oh, Hippicratic One, if this were true, why do you and your ilk belittle,
deride, and generally poke your noses at anyone who still believes in the
aether? According to your self serving words, we should continue to support
those scientists who believe in the aether because the idea isn't wrong,
it's just the wrong experiment? Michelson-Morley didn't prove the Aether as
a grand failure in science, because it was just a 'null result'. Everyone
here knows that you can continue to keep your tenure track position no
matter how many null results you get.
So how many null results do you need to have before gravity itself becomes
null and void?
Greysky
greysky
<srp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1eae490f-48dd-431c...@t1g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
André Michaud
Your belief may no doubt be true, but I fear by the time humanity wakes up
to the truth, those far future thinkers may once again be writing their
papers by oil lamps in mud huts, because the world will once again only be
lit by fire.
Greysky
Sam Wormley
If it's lit at all.
Androcles
"greysky" <gre...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:rqVjj.380$nK5...@nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com...
| There are no 'gravity waves'.
What's this, then?
http://tinyurl.com/2wsrsu
Right under your nose...
Androcles
You confuse homo neanderthalensis with homo sapiens sapiens
when you lump them together under the one banner, "humanity".
Those "oil" lamps are fuelled by animal fat, not mineral oil.
Gravity waves have been confirmed since primordial creatures
first settled on land, right under your nose. Trying to detect them
with LIGO is like trying to detect reflected sunlight from a duckpond,
hoping to read the fine print in the depths of your cave.
http://tinyurl.com/2wsrsu
greysky
"Androcles" <Engi...@hogwarts.physics_d> wrote in message
news:07%jj.6592$xm1....@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
Those are gravity waves the same way a step ladder is an antigravity
machine. I am sure if a binary neutron pair collapsed within 1 or 2 LY of
us, we would feel something, but probably wouldn't care what it was...
Androcles
Those are gravity waves the same way this is a voltage wave:
http://geothermal.marin.org/geopresentation/images/img038.jpg
The conductor rotates in the magnetic field, the Earth rotates in
the gravitational field. Your analogies need an overhaul.
Make the step ladder tall enough and it is an effective antigravity
machine. This is a tall enough step ladder:
http://tinyurl.com/2cmzzb
Climb it and you would feel something, but you probably
wouldn't care what it was... I would care, though. Where you get
"we" from only you know.
Nearest you'll come to a binary neutron pair is a deuterium atom
with one of the pair carrying a positive charge, and it's not about
to collapse. You say "binary pair" as some say "ink pen", as if there
were some other kind of binary that is not a pair, or some other
kind of pen that didn't use ink.
srp...@gmail.com
Indeed!
But at the time, there were still coherent scientists able to draw
the right conclusion then.
Nobody in sight in the community today.
André Michaud
Eric Gisse
So why is PSR 1913+16 losing energy in a fashion GR predicts, in a
fashion consistent with gravitational radiation?
Ignoring evidence you don't like doesn't make you a scientist.
Igor
> There are no 'gravity waves'. Kip Thorne isn't kidding when he says this is
> a poorly understood process. There will be no success at understanding
> gravity until the field model of gravitation is totally abandoned. A purely
> quantum physical description of gravity is possible, and is conceptually
> simple, but will never gain popularity until humanity turns it's back on
> it's current love affair with fields and the assumption that a force must
> necessairly have a field associated with it.
But how do you have a quantum theory of gravity without fields? What
exactly would you be quantizing?
Sam Wormley
You have to go with what the data tells you André, not what
you want to believe. That is at the heart of science. Kepler
comes to mind.
srp...@gmail.com
Well, Kepler had gathered ample non-zero data to work with.
That's the point.
The LIGO team gathered zip. zero. NO DATA.
Interestingly this confirm them into their certainty that they are
on the right track
How can rational beings paint themselves any tighter into an
empty corner!
Like Eric, they probably are certain that worm holes do exist
simply because the haven't been able to detect even one.
They need no other confirmation. Just blind faith. No science
whatsoever involved.
You are a joke. All of you.
André Michaud
Eric Gisse
Why do you insist on posting about subjects you don't understand?
The indirect evidence for gravitational radiation is extensive and the
design sensitivity of LIGO is enough to see stuff.
Greg Neill
news:bdfabb5f-ebf2-477f...@v29g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On 18 jan, 12:00, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
> > srp2...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On 17 jan, 17:44, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
> > >> Null results are extremely important in science.
> > >> Failure to detect aether wind was one of them!
> >
> > > Indeed!
> >
> > > But at the time, there were still coherent scientists able to draw
> > > the right conclusion then.
> >
> > > Nobody in sight in the community today.
> >
> > > André Michaud
> >
> > You have to go with what the data tells you André, not what
> > you want to believe. That is at the heart of science. Kepler
> > comes to mind.
>
> Well, Kepler had gathered ample non-zero data to work with.
Zero is a perfectly valid data value.
>
> That's the point.
>
> The LIGO team gathered zip. zero. NO DATA.
They had plenty of data. After processing they
found that it did not show evidence of a gravitational
wave accompanying the observed event. It is a very
useful result for astrophysicists who are in the
business of deriving models for such phenomena.
>
> Interestingly this confirm them into their certainty that they are
> on the right track
>
> How can rational beings paint themselves any tighter into an
> empty corner!
>
> Like Eric, they probably are certain that worm holes do exist
> simply because the haven't been able to detect even one.
Now there's a well thought out statement to make, Michaud.
Very scientific of you, ascribing your imaginary peeves
to people you don't know personally so that you can
proceed to declaim them.
>
> They need no other confirmation. Just blind faith. No science
> whatsoever involved.
If they had blind faith as you are alleging, they would
not have bothered building LIGO or checking the data
stream that was obtained at the time of the event; They
would simply have assumed that their current model for
the event was correct and moved on.
>
> You are a joke. All of you.
Well then at least, unlike you, we're amusing.
Ken S. Tucker
Look for the EMR output.
Ken S. Tucker
Eric Gisse
At what frequency?
What is the spectrum produced? What is its' intensity?
Ken S. Tucker
> On Jan 18, 4:38 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote:
> > On Jan 18, 8:33 am, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > So why is PSR 1913+16 losing energy in a fashion GR predicts, in a
> > > fashion consistent with gravitational radiation?
> > > Ignoring evidence you don't like doesn't make you a scientist.
>
> > Look for the EMR output.
> > Ken S. Tucker
>
> At what frequency?
> What is the spectrum produced? What is its' intensity?
That's an excellent suggestion Eric.
The LIGO et al operators might tune to PSR1913,
as they have a lot of data on that binary system.
By reducing bandwidth to narrow, the receiver Q
is increased and the Signal Noise Ratio is improved.
If it hasn't been done yet, make the suggestion.
In my study, the Very Low Frequency transmission
output in the EMR band would be the same.
Recall, the basis for EMR is classically, a charge
"a" undergoing a variation in an Electric field "E(b),
that generically begins with &E/&t, the so-called
Maxwell *displacement current*. (& is a partial).
Lets look at the elliptical binary PSR1913, and
note that every charge in M1 is a dipole with every
charge in M2.
By solving one charge couple, we can, by summing
all couples, solve for indefinitely large mass relations
to the limit of N-stars, prior to other factors appearing.
Classical GR does provide a solution, simplified for
one charge couple here,
http://physics.trak4.com/GR_Charge_Couple.pdf
In that case the mass (energy) is regarded as being
stored in a classical electrical configuration, and GR
is applied to that. The entire PSR1913 system can
be equated to the equivalent of electrically stored
energy in GR, because the Principle of Equivalence
(PoE), applies equally to all forms of stored energy.
From the link, we can look for the &E/&t terms,
(EMR radiation terms).
Importing Eq(2), g_00 = 1 - AB = 1- ab/S^2 .
A partial diff wrt "time" applied to g_00 gives,
(with the given definitions of E(a) and E(b)),
&g_00/&t => a*&E(b)/&t = b*&E(a)/&t Eq.(2a),
that recovers the *displacement current* much
more magnificiently, as the dipole emerges, due
to the symmetry of the RHS's.
Let's import Eq.(3) from the link, T_00 = E(a)*E(b),
and then do a partial diff wrt time on that, gives,
&T_00/&t = &E(a) * E(b) + E(a) * &E(b), Eq.(3a),
and again a beautiful symmetry occurs.
Specifically Eq.(3a) describes a rate of change of
Energy Density "T_00" of a *classical* binary system,
that accounts for the energy loss, via radiation, of the
PSR1913 system.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
kxsxt8
greysky
"Igor" <thoo...@excite.com> wrote in message
news:7be114d4-299f-44ae...@k39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
The problem comes from having an invalid concept of what gravity is, and
then attempting to construct a quantum model based on innappropriate
assumptions. Quantization of the correct factors not only yield a full
quantum model of gravity, but more importantly a valid classical model of
gravitation that defines its usefulness in the ability to make new and
correct predicitons, among which are:
why Mach's principle is valid,
why Baryon number is a true conserved quantity (not just observational
evidence)
why 'antigravity' is not observed in the cosmos (and where some forms of
mass do exhibit gravitational repulsion)
shows why the large scale cosmological structure of the universe looks the
way it does
derives a more powerful form of the equivalence principle which offers
further insights into the nature of matter and energy.
The field concept of gravity can currently offer no answers to the above
stated concepts. This places huge voids in our understanding, which, because
of Ignorance, Hubris, and Folly, are now being filled by even sillier
concepts such as string theory and dark energy. Yes, there is indeed
something quantizable 'out there', but it is not 'dark', nor does it need to
be explained by tiny multidimensional strings. The truth will make the stars
our playground, while old bankrupt ideas will make the earth our graveyard.
Greysky
Ken S. Tucker
> "Igor" <thoov...@excite.com> wrote in message
>
> news:7be114d4-299f-44ae...@k39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 17, 10:55 pm, "greysky" <grey...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > There are no 'gravity waves'. Kip Thorne isn't kidding when he says this
> > is
> > a poorly understood process. There will be no success at understanding
> > gravity until the field model of gravitation is totally abandoned. A
> > purely
> > quantum physical description of gravity is possible, and is conceptually
> > simple, but will never gain popularity until humanity turns it's back on
> > it's current love affair with fields and the assumption that a force must
> > necessairly have a field associated with it.
>
> But how do you have a quantum theory of gravity without fields? What
> exactly would you be quantizing?
This is my way of thinking.
http://physics.trak4.com/GR_Charge_Couple.pdf
Fields in Eq.(3), are E(a) and E(b), they are imaginery
operators that can only be measured by test particles,
in which case you now have relative relations.
In Eq.(4) of that link I show
S^2 = X^2 + ab (4).
Dimensionally, Plancks "h = ab" so
S^2 = X^2 + h (4a)
and Gravitation is quantized.
That's from *classical* GR and EM.
What can be simpler than Eq.(4a)?
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
Sam Wormley
>
> The LIGO team gathered zip. zero. NO DATA.
You should check out the LIGO achievements before spewing
out of ignorance, André.
Eric Gisse
> On Jan 18, 7:35 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 18, 4:38 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote:
> > > On Jan 18, 8:33 am, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ...
> > > > So why is PSR 1913+16 losing energy in a fashion GR predicts, in a
> > > > fashion consistent with gravitational radiation?
> > > > Ignoring evidence you don't like doesn't make you a scientist.
>
> > > Look for the EMR output.
> > > Ken S. Tucker
>
> > At what frequency?
> > What is the spectrum produced? What is its' intensity?
>
> That's an excellent suggestion Eric.
> The LIGO et al operators might tune to PSR1913,
> as they have a lot of data on that binary system.
Nope.
The system doesn't emit at a frequency LIGO can observe.
> By reducing bandwidth to narrow, the receiver Q
> is increased and the Signal Noise Ratio is improved.
> If it hasn't been done yet, make the suggestion.
>
> In my study, the Very Low Frequency transmission
> output in the EMR band would be the same.
>
> Recall, the basis for EMR is classically, a charge
> "a" undergoing a variation in an Electric field "E(b),
> that generically begins with &E/&t, the so-called
> Maxwell *displacement current*. (& is a partial).
Uhhhh... No.
The basis for EMR is a /charge/ dipole moment with a nonzero time
derivative. Might want to brush up on some introductory E&M.
Displacement current has nothing to do with it.
>
> Lets look at the elliptical binary PSR1913, and
> note that every charge in M1 is a dipole with every
> charge in M2.
No, Ken.
1) This is not a system of charges. This is a binary star system that
will have charge neutrality.
2) Newton's 3rd law prevents there being a changing mass dipole
moment.
3) The basic definition of a dipole prevents there being a mass
dipole.
>
> By solving one charge couple, we can, by summing
> all couples, solve for indefinitely large mass relations
> to the limit of N-stars, prior to other factors appearing.
GR is a nonlinear theory, the principle of superposition does not
apply.
>
> Classical GR does provide a solution, simplified for
> one charge couple here,http://physics.trak4.com/GR_Charge_Couple.pdf
The solution is crap because you cannot justify any of it.
In order to get your solution, you would have to simultaneously solve
the coupled Einstein field equations and Maxwell's equations. Even in
the simple cases, that is a long process that needs documentation. You
have a less-than-simple case and you simply write down the answer and
don't bother supporting it.
>
> In that case the mass (energy) is regarded as being
> stored in a classical electrical configuration, and GR
> is applied to that. The entire PSR1913 system can
> be equated to the equivalent of electrically stored
> energy in GR, because the Principle of Equivalence
> (PoE), applies equally to all forms of stored energy.
The EP does not imply you can treat mass and charge as if they were
the same. They are not, and you can't.
The dynamical behavior of the system is governed by the field
equations. If you want to show how charge behaves, you can either
treat them as test masses and use the geodesic equation ala F = ma or
you use the faraday tensor as a source term.
>
> From the link, we can look for the &E/&t terms,
> (EMR radiation terms).
You have no idea what you are doing.
>
> Importing Eq(2), g_00 = 1 - AB = 1- ab/S^2 .
Since you have resisted showing how you derive this equation, I can
only conclude that you can't and that it is not a solution to the
field equations in any way.
>
> A partial diff wrt "time" applied to g_00 gives,
> (with the given definitions of E(a) and E(b)),
>
> &g_00/&t => a*&E(b)/&t = b*&E(a)/&t Eq.(2a),
Even more ignorant, confused crap. You have no justification for the
chain of logic since each one is wrong.
>
> that recovers the *displacement current* much
> more magnificiently, as the dipole emerges, due
> to the symmetry of the RHS's.
You have no idea what you are talking about, and haven't for a long
time. Find a new hobby?
>
> Let's import Eq.(3) from the link, T_00 = E(a)*E(b),
More ignorance, Ken? I am amused to note that not once have you ever
actually referenced the E&M stress energy tensor u_0 T^ab = -F^ag
F_g^b - 1/4 g^ab F_gd F^gd.
That truncated version of the stress energy tensor is /only true/ in
Minkowski space and /only true/ when there are no magnetic fields
since there is a |B|^2 contribution in the T_00 term. Since you have
made such a big fucking deal about @E/@t terms, I'm staggered to see
that your spew is once again self-contradictory.
Remember Maxwell's equations, Ken?
del x B = -@E/@t + mu_0 J
You have a contribution from B, and you are ignoring it. Your entire
solution is wrong, and I don't even need to see your non-derivation of
your solution to see it.
> and then do a partial diff wrt time on that, gives,
>
> &T_00/&t = &E(a) * E(b) + E(a) * &E(b), Eq.(3a),
At least you grasp the concept of the product rule. Too bad you
haven't the faintest clue as to what you are doing.
>
> and again a beautiful symmetry occurs.
...garbage in, garbage out?
>
> Specifically Eq.(3a) describes a rate of change of
> Energy Density "T_00" of a *classical* binary system,
> that accounts for the energy loss, via radiation, of the
> PSR1913 system.
*snort*
Let's see the calculation of the energy loss, Ken. Assuming it exists,
of course.
...it does exist, right Ken? You wouldn't be bullshitting me, now
would you?
Eric Gisse
http://einstein.phys.uwm.edu/FinalS3Results
But it is far, far easier for Andre to mutter about a subject that has
ignored him and kick the ground than admit he is wrong.
Ken S. Tucker
> On Jan 18, 8:15 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote:
> > On Jan 18, 7:35 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Jan 18, 4:38 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote:
> > > > On Jan 18, 8:33 am, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > ...
> > > > > So why is PSR 1913+16 losing energy in a fashion GR predicts, in a
> > > > > fashion consistent with gravitational radiation?
> > > > > Ignoring evidence you don't like doesn't make you a scientist.
>
> > > > Look for the EMR output.
> > > > Ken S. Tucker
>
> > > At what frequency?
> > > What is the spectrum produced? What is its' intensity?
>
> > That's an excellent suggestion Eric.
> > The LIGO et al operators might tune to PSR1913,
> > as they have a lot of data on that binary system.
>
> Nope.
Good enuff
Ken
srp...@gmail.com
So will you now be arguing that they actually detected
gravitational waves?
Contrary to reports.
Not even the tiniest flutter. Zip. Zero.
No gravitational waves in sight. None detected.
That's what they reported, which to them is an
actual confirmation of their existence as they so
skillfully report.
André Michaud
Eric Gisse
> On 19 jan, 01:22, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>
> > srp2...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > The LIGO team gathered zip. zero. NO DATA.
>
> > You should check out the LIGO achievements before spewing
> > out of ignorance, André.
>
> So will you now be arguing that they actually detected
> gravitational waves?
>
> Contrary to reports.
Nobody claims that LIGO has detected gravitational waves.
Detection and data are separate subjects - LIGO has, as you have
already whined about, been placing a crapload of limits on
astronomical events through non-detection.
The fact remains that we have seen several binary systems that decay
as if gravitational radiation is being emitted. Until you have an
explanation, you might want to consider that physicists aren't stupid.
Ken S. Tucker
IIRC there are similiar detectors in Germany,
Italy and Japan, so there was an international
consensus that they would work.
I/we have calculated g-wave detection would
violate the Principle of Equivalence, so I don't
expect the'll ever work, but it had to be tried.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
Eric Gisse
Oh, I was *so* hoping for something better than this. Looks like you
don't have a response that passes even your standards.
Ken S. Tucker
What do you want to hear?
srp...@gmail.com
Definitely had to be tried. Agreed.
What I find totally unacceptable is the so obvious
sidestepping hinting that detetecting gravitational
waves was not the main purpose of the LIGO
experiment.
This will of course fool ignorant politics and burocrats
into funding this useless search further but it
can't fool everybody.
We all know that the real stake is payroll money.
Nothing to do with science nor real research.
Maybe you and many others don't agree with this
Ken, but I have been around long enough to have
finely analyzed the way some operate int the
community.
This one simply stinks.
Best.
André Michaud
André Michaud
Eric Gisse
USENET is not the scientific community, and you still haven't
explained why binary systems decay in a manner consistent with the
existence of gravitational radiation.
Ken S. Tucker
> On 19 jan, 13:00, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote:
> > IIRC there are similiar detectors in Germany,
> > Italy and Japan, so there was an international
> > consensus that they would work.
> > I/we have calculated g-wave detection would
> > violate the Principle of Equivalence, so I don't
> > expect the'll ever work, but it had to be tried.
> > Regards
> > Ken S. Tucker
>
> Definitely had to be tried. Agreed.
> What I find totally unacceptable is the so obvious
> sidestepping hinting that detetecting gravitational
> waves was not the main purpose of the LIGO
> experiment.
If the experimenters get time, I'd like to know what
effect differing voltages would have on the interfero-
meter.
> This will of course fool ignorant politics and burocrats
> into funding this useless search further but it
> can't fool everybody.
Experimentation is risky. Fella's I've studied are
honestly convinced g-waves are real, there is no
need for a "fool factor".
> We all know that the real stake is payroll money.
> Nothing to do with science nor real research.
Naaa, the fella's are way to bright and skilled to
knowingly waste time and money for a few bucks.
> Maybe you and many others don't agree with this
> Ken, but I have been around long enough to have
> finely analyzed the way some operate int the
> community.
Ok, but there are some extremely bright fella's
who won't make a penny one way or the other
that support the project. On the contrary, if the
experiment doesn't work there's going to a lot
of obsolete text books.
> This one simply stinks.
Well there are a lot of reputations at stake, and
that, I'm afraid may soil the reputation of GRist's,
if the experiment never works.
> Best.
> André Michaud
Same to you.
Ken S. Tucker
srp...@gmail.com
Admittting error or failure of an experiment never
soilled any reputation. What it shows is only
recognizing that the underlying theory is flawed,
which in turns induces all to start looking for
a better foundation.
I know of course that there are a lot of honest
believers involved and have not a bad word to
say about them. But hinting that the LIGO
experient was not meant to detect g-waves
after all definitely doesn't look like a straight
pull from the collar to me.
That's my opinion. May be wrong.
To reconsider I would need definite statements
from formal papers issued before the LIGO
project was started that it was not originally
meant to detect g-waves.
Hey Ken! Speaking of formal publication.
Maybe you remember that paper that
I built on one of Paul Marmet's paper
For memory, my paper:
http://pages.globetrotter.net/srp/discrete_electromagnetic_fields.pdf
and Marmet's paper
http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/magnetic/mass.html
Well, the Kazan State U International IFNA-ANS Journal
just published my own article in their last issue (No.2 (28),
v.13, 2007, 123-140), no doubt as a follow up of Marmet's.
When I got new from them a few weeks ago, I did not
even remember I had submitted it to them. I then found
trace of my submission more than 2 years ago and
remembered that I simply thought they might be interested
since the paper it was based on had been published by
them.
Remember that Fred was of the opinion that even if he
couldn't pinpoint any error in it, it must be wrong somehow.
Well these guys don't seem to be of the same opinion.
Best
André Michaud
Ken S. Tucker
To soon to *admit* failure. New tools take time.
> I know of course that there are a lot of honest
> believers involved and have not a bad word to
> say about them. But hinting that the LIGO
> experient was not meant to detect g-waves
> after all definitely doesn't look like a straight
> pull from the collar to me.
>
> That's my opinion. May be wrong.
> To reconsider I would need definite statements
> from formal papers issued before the LIGO
> project was started that it was not originally
> meant to detect g-waves.
>
> Hey Ken! Speaking of formal publication.
> Maybe you remember that paper that
> I built on one of Paul Marmet's paper
>
> For memory, my paper:
>
> http://pages.globetrotter.net/srp/discrete_electromagnetic_fields.pdf
>
> and Marmet's paper
>
> http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/magnetic/mass.html
Dr. Marmet and I had a lively email debate some
years back. I never quite understood his dislike
of tensor analysis.
> Well, the Kazan State U International IFNA-ANS Journal
> just published my own article in their last issue (No.2 (28),
> v.13, 2007, 123-140), no doubt as a follow up of Marmet's.
>
> When I got new from them a few weeks ago, I did not
> even remember I had submitted it to them. I then found
> trace of my submission more than 2 years ago and
> remembered that I simply thought they might be interested
> since the paper it was based on had been published by
> them.
I hope that's a "CONGRADS" moment.
> Remember that Fred was of the opinion that even if he
> couldn't pinpoint any error in it, it must be wrong somehow.
Yup, sure do, that was a good debate.
> Well these guys don't seem to be of the same opinion.
> Best
> André Michaud
Once again, same to you.
Ken S. Tucker
srp...@gmail.com
No doubt. But my view is that this particular test
shows failure of the underlying theory.
More a moment of head scatching surprise at first, then
satisfaction that some causalists seem to still be around,
and that new avenues consistent with physical reality may
well start being explored before I am gone.
> > Remember that Fred was of the opinion that even if he
> > couldn't pinpoint any error in it, it must be wrong somehow.
>
> Yup, sure do, that was a good debate.
Sure was. Allowed me to clarify many too vague issues as
he raised them.
> > Well these guys don't seem to be of the same opinion.
> > Best
> > André Michaud
>
> Once again, same to you.
> Ken S. Tucker
André Michaud