Does A Butterfly Gravity Wave Show Up In LA As It Flies IN China

[reber g=emc^2]

People at LIGO say YES.Afterall China is so close and those two BHs that hit were 1.4 billion LYs miles from Earth Get the picture.TreBert

[Alie...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, June 22, 2016 at 3:31:36 PM UTC-7, reber g=emc^2 wrote:
> People at LIGO say YES.Afterall China is so close and those two BHs that hit
> were 1.4 billion LYs miles from Earth Get the picture.TreBert

Bert, some asshole flagged your post as "Abusive", and I downvoted that.

The theory is that gravity waves resemble electromagnetic waves in some important ways (though they also are different in some significant ways too). To make EM waves you have to physically move some charges back and forth. To make gravitational waves you do the same with masses.

So, lets move some electrons back and forth. Their electric charges will generate EM waves we can detect easily- we've been doing it since before vacuum tubes were invented. Their masses will also generate gravitational waves, but the feature of the vacuum that couples masses together (the gravitational coupling constant) is ridiculously smaller than the feature that couples electric charges (the fine structure constant), so the gravitational waves will be ridiculously weaker too.

How much smaller, you ask? The EM constant for two electrons has a numerical value of about 1/137 but the gravitational constant for those same two electrons is about 2x10^-43. That's about the ratio of the size of a quark in a proton to the size of the observable universe. That's the ratio of the strengths of the EM and gravitational waves from any moving charged masses.

Let that sink in for a moment. The EM interaction is as much stronger than the gravitational interaction is, as the Universe is as much bigger than a quark is.

So to get gravitational waves you can measure *at all* you need ridiculously large amounts of matter (like neutron stars) moving ridiculously quickly (falling together at relativistic velocities in their mutual ridiculously strong gravitational fields just before colliding).

Anything less is just not strong enough to cause the mirrors in an interferometer to move detectably.

That's all somewhat oversimplified, but that's the bottom line. To measure the flap of a butterfly's wing anywhere you're gonna need one very large butterfly made of something a lot denser than osmium.


Mark L. Fergerson

[reber g=emc^2]

Mark they are not posting.Well Einstein sais GWs are to weak to find.TreBert

[reber g=emc^2]

Think what waves a 747 can make flying near LIGO WOW.More than enough wave force to crack its mirror.

[reber g=emc^2]

What if a jet hit the sound barrier over one of the mirrors.$450,000,000 worth of bad luck for tax payers. I'm sure they are insured by Alstate.Trebert

[trudi.s...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, June 23, 2016 at 12:31:36 AM UTC+2, reber g=emc^2 wrote:
> People at LIGO say YES.Afterall China is so close and those two BHs that hit were 1.4 billion LYs miles from Earth Get the picture.TreBert

I keep getting messages like "this message is hidden because it was flagged for abuse". Who is playing censor in this group? I do not want assholes to block messages for me. If I don`t want to read something, I would like to decide for myself. Whoever is doing that should apply for a job as a censor in a country that openly censors stuff and happily live in that country. I do not want censorship of any kind.

[Alie...@gmail.com]

When you open such messages you get to vote on whether *you* find it to be abusive.

Express your opinion that way. Chances are Google tracks who censors what and downplays wannabe censors who get downvoted a lot.

It's probably somebody pissed off at Herb. I can think of a couple of suspects.


Mark L. Fergerson

[noTthaTguY]

the vector-sum of a bunch of ... flies, flapping or floating or
in Florida

[Odd Bodkin]

On 6/28/2016 8:36 PM, trudi.s...@gmail.com wrote:

>
> I keep getting messages like "this message is hidden because it was flagged for abuse".
> Who is playing censor in this group? I do not want assholes to block messages for me. If
> I don`t want to read something, I would like to decide for myself. Whoever is doing that
> should apply for a job as a censor in a country that openly censors stuff and happily
> live in that country. I do not want censorship of any kind.
>

Then stop using Google Groups and use a different usenet reader. The
messages are not being censored from the group. They're still there.
It's your choice of tool that is determining what you see. So if you
don't like the tool you're using, use a different one.


--
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[benj]

Too late! There are far too many impressionable youth being
"radicalized" online who then go shoot up some infidels to allow
uncensored posts anymore. That that goes for uncensored science as well.
Science today has FAR too great a political element to allow free and
open discussions. This is why official censors like HVAC are assigned to
any of the remaining uncensored forums to disrupt and ridicule any
discussion that wanders too far off the reservation.

[Odd Bodkin]

On 6/29/2016 4:41 PM, benj wrote:
> This is why official censors like HVAC are assigned to
> any of the remaining uncensored forums to disrupt and ridicule any
> discussion that wanders too far off the reservation.

I find it fascinating that you consider ridicule and disruption to be
censorship. In my mind, those kinds of comments are fair game in an open
an uncensored discussion. Or are you suggesting that ridicule and
disruption should be censored from a discussion about topics that are
far off the reservation?

Do you even know what censorship means?

[benj]

I presume as a counselor your idea is anything means whatever you SAY it
means. Censorship is clearly when some are not allowed to speak. No one
(certainly not me) has EVER suggested that HVAC or others of his ilk
(including) you not be allowed to speak.

However, disruptions are clearly censorship of discussions.
So in your leftist view that the typical ploy of LIBs going to a city
council meeting and screaming and hollering so that no discussion can
take place is "free speech" and should be permitted? That disruptors
should never be ejected because of a violation of their "rights"?

You know that under the law slander and libel are not "free speech".
Does doing so on the internet make it OK? Give us some legal advice
counselor.

I don't think you progies will be so hot for a police state were you not
expecting to be of the privileged class uncensored.

[Odd Bodkin]

On 6/29/2016 5:10 PM, benj wrote:
> On 6/29/2016 5:49 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 6/29/2016 4:41 PM, benj wrote:
>>> This is why official censors like HVAC are assigned to
>>> any of the remaining uncensored forums to disrupt and ridicule any
>>> discussion that wanders too far off the reservation.
>>
>> I find it fascinating that you consider ridicule and disruption to be
>> censorship. In my mind, those kinds of comments are fair game in an open
>> an uncensored discussion. Or are you suggesting that ridicule and
>> disruption should be censored from a discussion about topics that are
>> far off the reservation?
>>
>> Do you even know what censorship means?
>>
> I presume as a counselor your idea is anything means whatever you SAY it
> means. Censorship is clearly when some are not allowed to speak. No one
> (certainly not me) has EVER suggested that HVAC or others of his ilk
> (including) you not be allowed to speak.

And as far as I know, HVAC has never suggested that anyone else not be
allowed to speak. Nor have I.

>
> However, disruptions are clearly censorship of discussions.

I COMPLETELY disagree. Disruptions are part of open discussions.

> So in your leftist view that the typical ploy of LIBs going to a city
> council meeting and screaming and hollering so that no discussion can
> take place is "free speech" and should be permitted?

As far as I know, no one can shout over another in a newsgroup so that
the other cannot be heard. As far as I know, no comment on a newsgroup
prevents another from speaking or from anyone hearing the speaker.

> That disruptors
> should never be ejected because of a violation of their "rights"?

You may be aware of the Constitution-protected right to peaceful
demonstrations. Where those demonstrations can involve megaphones. Are
you saying that demonstrators who gather on Capitol steps and make a lot
of noise should be ejected because they are disrupting the conversation
in the Capitol?

>
> You know that under the law slander and libel are not "free speech".

I'm not aware of any slander and libel going on here, and to the degree
that any comments approach it, you are as participatory as any.

> Does doing so on the internet make it OK? Give us some legal advice
> counselor.
>
> I don't think you progies will be so hot for a police state were you not
> expecting to be of the privileged class uncensored.

[benj]

On 6/29/2016 6:22 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 6/29/2016 5:10 PM, benj wrote:
>> On 6/29/2016 5:49 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>> On 6/29/2016 4:41 PM, benj wrote:
>>>> This is why official censors like HVAC are assigned to
>>>> any of the remaining uncensored forums to disrupt and ridicule any
>>>> discussion that wanders too far off the reservation.
>>>
>>> I find it fascinating that you consider ridicule and disruption to be
>>> censorship. In my mind, those kinds of comments are fair game in an open
>>> an uncensored discussion. Or are you suggesting that ridicule and
>>> disruption should be censored from a discussion about topics that are
>>> far off the reservation?
>>>
>>> Do you even know what censorship means?
>>>
>> I presume as a counselor your idea is anything means whatever you SAY it
>> means. Censorship is clearly when some are not allowed to speak. No one
>> (certainly not me) has EVER suggested that HVAC or others of his ilk
>> (including) you not be allowed to speak.
>
> And as far as I know, HVAC has never suggested that anyone else not be
> allowed to speak. Nor have I.
>
>>
>> However, disruptions are clearly censorship of discussions.
>
> I COMPLETELY disagree. Disruptions are part of open discussions.

Why am I not at all surprised, Comrade?

>> So in your leftist view that the typical ploy of LIBs going to a city
>> council meeting and screaming and hollering so that no discussion can
>> take place is "free speech" and should be permitted?
>
> As far as I know, no one can shout over another in a newsgroup so that
> the other cannot be heard. As far as I know, no comment on a newsgroup
> prevents another from speaking or from anyone hearing the speaker.

Quite true and I am fully aware of that. And of course kill files exist
for the purpose of eliminating noise.

>> That disruptors
>> should never be ejected because of a violation of their "rights"?
>
> You may be aware of the Constitution-protected right to peaceful
> demonstrations. Where those demonstrations can involve megaphones. Are
> you saying that demonstrators who gather on Capitol steps and make a lot
> of noise should be ejected because they are disrupting the conversation
> in the Capitol?

No counselor, I'm am pointing out that those disrupting congress by
noise in the galleries are ejected. Do you argue that such ejections are
illegal? (probably you do) Rights do not negate responsibilities.

Your right to swing your fist freely ends at my nose.

>> You know that under the law slander and libel are not "free speech".
>
> I'm not aware of any slander and libel going on here, and to the degree
> that any comments approach it, you are as participatory as any.

OF course I am because it's "Usenet culture" which has wider rules than
say a sermon given in a church. So if HVAC informs every one that this
or that person is "insane" without any facts to back it up, well that's
"culture", same as the way I say he is gay or insane. Just noise. And as
you note kill file gets rid of it all. But are lies against lies, free
speech, especially when they are POLITICALLY motivated lies? Sure. In
fact, ESPECIALLY when they are political.

But we still come back to the issue of is disruption of normal business
allowed? And you say yes? I'm not surprised you think nobody (especially
yourself) needs to be responsible for their actions.

>> Does doing so on the internet make it OK? Give us some legal advice
>> counselor.

Well does it? What about the internet "bullying" laws and the like. Are
you and HVAC "bullying" me? If I kill myself in despair or because HVAC
made my "mad" are you two going to jail?

[HVAC]

BJ quacked

Too late! There are far too many impressionable youth being
"radicalized" online who then go shoot up some infidels to allow
uncensored posts anymore. That that goes for uncensored science as well.
Science today has FAR too great a political element to allow free and
open discussions. This is why official censors like HVAC are assigned to
any of the remaining uncensored forums to disrupt and ridicule any
discussion that wanders too far off the reservation.

-----------

You believe in ghosts, ESP and a host of other insane kooky ideas.

No one needs me to tell them that you're a chucklehead. You do a damn fine job of that yourself.

Right right?

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Odd Bodkin wrote:

> On 6/29/2016 5:10 PM, benj wrote:
>> You know that under the law slander and libel are not "free speech".
>
> I'm not aware of any slander and libel going on here, and to the degree
> that any comments approach it, you are as participatory as any.

Unfortunately, libel is going on here on a daily basis. Slander obviously
is not, as everybody expressing themselves here is *writing* (even though,
as a figure of speech, one uses verbs like “say” to refer to those
expressions of speech).


PointedEars, IANAL

[jay moseley]

Mark Ferguson wrote...

> Let that sink in for a moment. The EM interaction is as much stronger than the gravitational interaction is, as the Universe is as much bigger than a quark is.

>So to get gravitational waves you can measure *at all* you need ridiculously large amounts of matter (like neutron stars) moving ridiculously quickly (falling together at relativistic velocities in their mutual ridiculously strong gravitational fields just before colliding).

>Anything less is just not strong enough to cause the mirrors in an interferometer to move detectably.

Odd about Herb being considered abusive. The last person I would have called abusive.
Is that why Sam doesnt post any more? Has someone complained I wonder. I didnt agree with
anything he posted but he didnt deserve to be censored if thats what happens now.
(I post through google groups but dont get the choice to censor?)

Regarding your points on gravitational waves. Ive read as much as is available
on LIGO on template matching and various papers and it seems that what happens
is this: Each detector gets billions of chirp like signals. Some too faint are filtered out
as noise. Still leaving millions if not billions of candidate signals. Computor
analysis of data then matches each incoming chirp to various types of possible
black hole merger signatures in each detector seperately. It then matches each
candidate from each detector to any candidate chirp detected at the other detector
within the neccesary time frame dictated by assumed speed of gravity (essentially
ignoring any matches that are too far apart temporally to be consistent
with a relativistic gravity speed , and ignoring any chirp that does match a
relativistic BH merging profile but not the specific profile seen in the other detector)
This reduces a huge amount of candidate detections in each detector to a handful
that exactly match the profile of one detected in the other detector in a given time
frame of microseconds. And the match is then assumed to be a gravitational wave.

What the theorists dont like to admit is that in fact there are millions of detections
in each seperate detector that look like *and fit* the predicted relativistic merger
profile of a range of merging BH possibilities. But because of the temporal
restriction coupled with the need to match only identical profiles in each detector
these millions are wittled down to just three so far.

The only conclusion one can reach is that no merging holes are being detected.
Rather, it is that various random non relativistic sources are being detected and
sophisticated software is being used to match billions of "candidate" detections
from each detector to a detection in the other detector that just * happens* by
chance to match profiles in a given time frame. More importantly it shows
how false the claim is that only three detections in each detector look
like a gravitational wave BH source. In fact millions of detections look
like the predicted relativustic chirp. Its just that because predicted BH mergers
have a huge range of possible profiles only a couple with identical
profiles happen in the same narrow time frame.
So for instance if gravity had a slower predicted speed. More gravitational
waves could be detected from the same data. And conversely, with a
newtonian restriction of an infinite speed ...so far no matches can meet
these strict requirements. And when one does, the relativists can just say
that the source was exactly the same distance from each detector!

[Odd Bodkin]

On 6/29/2016 6:14 PM, benj wrote:
> On 6/29/2016 6:22 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 6/29/2016 5:10 PM, benj wrote:
>>> On 6/29/2016 5:49 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>> On 6/29/2016 4:41 PM, benj wrote:
>>>>> This is why official censors like HVAC are assigned to
>>>>> any of the remaining uncensored forums to disrupt and ridicule any
>>>>> discussion that wanders too far off the reservation.
>>>>
>>>> I find it fascinating that you consider ridicule and disruption to be
>>>> censorship. In my mind, those kinds of comments are fair game in an
>>>> open
>>>> an uncensored discussion. Or are you suggesting that ridicule and
>>>> disruption should be censored from a discussion about topics that are
>>>> far off the reservation?
>>>>
>>>> Do you even know what censorship means?
>>>>
>>> I presume as a counselor your idea is anything means whatever you SAY it
>>> means. Censorship is clearly when some are not allowed to speak. No one
>>> (certainly not me) has EVER suggested that HVAC or others of his ilk
>>> (including) you not be allowed to speak.
>>
>> And as far as I know, HVAC has never suggested that anyone else not be
>> allowed to speak. Nor have I.
>>
>>>
>>> However, disruptions are clearly censorship of discussions.
>>
>> I COMPLETELY disagree. Disruptions are part of open discussions.
>
> Why am I not at all surprised, Comrade?

Nor should you be. You apparently want the censorship of criticism,
disruption, and ridicule. I personally am not in favor of censorship.

>
>>> So in your leftist view that the typical ploy of LIBs going to a city
>>> council meeting and screaming and hollering so that no discussion can
>>> take place is "free speech" and should be permitted?
>>
>> As far as I know, no one can shout over another in a newsgroup so that
>> the other cannot be heard. As far as I know, no comment on a newsgroup
>> prevents another from speaking or from anyone hearing the speaker.
>
> Quite true and I am fully aware of that. And of course kill files exist
> for the purpose of eliminating noise.

Then your point, if you attempted to have one, was well off mark.

>
>>> That disruptors
>>> should never be ejected because of a violation of their "rights"?
>>
>> You may be aware of the Constitution-protected right to peaceful
>> demonstrations. Where those demonstrations can involve megaphones. Are
>> you saying that demonstrators who gather on Capitol steps and make a lot
>> of noise should be ejected because they are disrupting the conversation
>> in the Capitol?
>
> No counselor, I'm am pointing out that those disrupting congress by
> noise in the galleries are ejected. Do you argue that such ejections are
> illegal? (probably you do) Rights do not negate responsibilities.

In a forum like this one, as you say, noise is filterable and is not an
obstruction of discussion. And in fact, ANY comment, because it can be
voiced and heard along with ANY OTHER comment, contributes to the
discussion.

>
> Your right to swing your fist freely ends at my nose.
>
>>> You know that under the law slander and libel are not "free speech".
>>
>> I'm not aware of any slander and libel going on here, and to the degree
>> that any comments approach it, you are as participatory as any.
>
> OF course I am because it's "Usenet culture" which has wider rules than
> say a sermon given in a church. So if HVAC informs every one that this
> or that person is "insane" without any facts to back it up, well that's
> "culture", same as the way I say he is gay or insane. Just noise.

And therefore your claim that censorship is in play in the newsgroup is
simply wrong, as is your comment that libel and slander are in play in
the newsgroup. Why you made those comments at all eludes me, especially
now that you disavow them.

> And as
> you note kill file gets rid of it all. But are lies against lies, free
> speech, especially when they are POLITICALLY motivated lies? Sure. In
> fact, ESPECIALLY when they are political.
>
> But we still come back to the issue of is disruption of normal business
> allowed? And you say yes? I'm not surprised you think nobody (especially
> yourself) needs to be responsible for their actions.

Of course people need to be responsible for their actions. Being
responsible does not mean abdicating one's rights or choosing not to
protect them.

>
>>> Does doing so on the internet make it OK? Give us some legal advice
>>> counselor.
>
> Well does it? What about the internet "bullying" laws and the like. Are
> you and HVAC "bullying" me? If I kill myself in despair or because HVAC
> made my "mad" are you two going to jail?

I'm willing to put that to legal test.

>
>>> I don't think you progies will be so hot for a police state were you not
>>> expecting to be of the privileged class uncensored.
>>
>>
>

[noTthaTguY]

the butterfly effect is bogus,
insofar as the collective flapping of migratory critters

[HVAC]

Odd Bodkin

> Well does it? What about the internet "bullying" laws and the like. Are
> you and HVAC "bullying" me? If I kill myself in despair or because HVAC
> made my "mad" are you two going to jail?

I'm willing to put that to legal test.

------------

That actually made me laugh out loud at 1:30 am!

Too funny

[reber g=emc^2]

jay Sam is OK we email and have been friends for over 20 years.We can be friends and still disagree as long as its not done with a hatefull heart. To much hatefull posters made Sam quit.I at times think of quiting. Herb

[ClutterFreak]

On Fri, 1 Jul 2016 09:17:27 -0700 (PDT), reber g=emc^2
wrote:

> To much hatefull posters made Sam quit.I at times think of
> quiting. Herb

Nobody here hates you Bert. They're just showing what
they are, not what you are. Tell Sam Clutter says "Get
over it."

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[Double-A]

On Tuesday, June 28, 2016 at 6:58:31 PM UTC-7, noTthaTguY wrote:
> the vector-sum of a bunch of ... flies, flapping or floating or
> in Florida

Sort of a vector-sum of lot of vectors buzzing around? Does Florida have any Vector Control Boards? We do here.

Double-A

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

noTthaTguY wrote:

> the butterfly effect is bogus,
> insofar as the collective flapping of migratory critters

Once again your follow-up to my posting has nothing to do with my posting.

When will you have learned to post?

--
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[noTthaTguY]

tOO butterlies walked into a

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

noTthaTguY wrote:

> tOO butterlies walked into a
>
>> When will you have learned to post?

> [top post]

I guess the correct answer is “never”.