Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Re: Detection of gravitational waves
4 views
Skip to first unread message
Koobee Wublee
May 21, 2012, 2:03:22 AM5/21/12
to
On May 20, 7:08 pm, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 5/19/12 5/19/12 8:25 AM, hippolyte Lapoyat wrote:
>
> > The collapse of a star is supposed to create gravitational waves.
>
> Not really. The primary source of gravitational waves that the various detectors
> are seeking is the inspiral of a massive object into another. That is, as two
> massive objects orbit each other, they emit gravitational radiation, which
> represents a loss of energy in the local system (loosely defined), and they
> approach each other, with decreasing orbital period, until they collide. Of one
> of the objects is a black hole, there is no collision, and the other object is
> simply engulfed.
Really, Tom. The mathematics of gravitational radiation can be
interpreted in many different ways. Of course, one is the quadruple
moment conjecture. <shrug>
When a star collapses, the angular momentum is conserved under
Newtonian laws of physics. When a binary system merging together into
a single star, the angular momentum ought to be conserved as well. Of
course, the angular momentum should not be taken as conserved at any
circumstances, but are you telling us, two quantities of angular
momentums can be different such that one would produce gravitational
radiation and another one would not? <shrug>
> The collapse of a star is approximately spherically symmetric if it is not
> spinning, or approximately cylindrically symmetric if it is spinning. Sources
> with such symmetry emit no gravitational radiation in GR.
You know what. Mathematically, there is no difference between a
collapsing star and a merging binary system. So, so please explain
exactly how one circumstance in angular momentum can be conserved
while one would not. <shrug>
> > The
> > strong acceleration of a mass would produce the same kind of waves.
> > Can we compare the intensity of the waves produced by a rocket (space
> > shuttle or Ariane) with the waves coming from the sky?
>
> Man-made phenomena like that are VASTLY smaller than natural astronomical
> processes, by MANY orders of magnitude. The gravitational waves from any
> human-induced process are completely undetectable.
This statement is assumed that gravitational waves have been detected
somewhat. Where? <shrug> Oh, building more energetic accelerators
and longer LIGO aperture base would help, right? Yes. <shrug>
> On 5/19/12 5/19/12 8:25 AM, hippolyte Lapoyat wrote:
>
> > The collapse of a star is supposed to create gravitational waves.
>
> Not really. The primary source of gravitational waves that the various detectors
> are seeking is the inspiral of a massive object into another. That is, as two
> massive objects orbit each other, they emit gravitational radiation, which
> represents a loss of energy in the local system (loosely defined), and they
> approach each other, with decreasing orbital period, until they collide. Of one
> of the objects is a black hole, there is no collision, and the other object is
> simply engulfed.
Really, Tom. The mathematics of gravitational radiation can be
interpreted in many different ways. Of course, one is the quadruple
moment conjecture. <shrug>
When a star collapses, the angular momentum is conserved under
Newtonian laws of physics. When a binary system merging together into
a single star, the angular momentum ought to be conserved as well. Of
course, the angular momentum should not be taken as conserved at any
circumstances, but are you telling us, two quantities of angular
momentums can be different such that one would produce gravitational
radiation and another one would not? <shrug>
> The collapse of a star is approximately spherically symmetric if it is not
> spinning, or approximately cylindrically symmetric if it is spinning. Sources
> with such symmetry emit no gravitational radiation in GR.
You know what. Mathematically, there is no difference between a
collapsing star and a merging binary system. So, so please explain
exactly how one circumstance in angular momentum can be conserved
while one would not. <shrug>
> > The
> > strong acceleration of a mass would produce the same kind of waves.
> > Can we compare the intensity of the waves produced by a rocket (space
> > shuttle or Ariane) with the waves coming from the sky?
>
> Man-made phenomena like that are VASTLY smaller than natural astronomical
> processes, by MANY orders of magnitude. The gravitational waves from any
> human-induced process are completely undetectable.
This statement is assumed that gravitational waves have been detected
somewhat. Where? <shrug> Oh, building more energetic accelerators
and longer LIGO aperture base would help, right? Yes. <shrug>
1treePetrifiedForestLane
May 23, 2012, 1:38:23 AM5/23/12
to
so, do you still believe in Pascal's absolute vacuum,
through which lightwaves are incapable of propogation?
through which lightwaves are incapable of propogation?
G=EMC^2
May 23, 2012, 7:30:31 AM5/23/12
to
smaller. Mass density relates to rotational speed. It in a way proves
gravity,and inertia are equal. TreBert
0 new messages