info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Why Gravitational Waves Cannot Exist
164 views
Skip to first unread message
Pentcho Valev
Mar 21, 2016, 4:27:40 AM3/21/16
to
The existence of gravitational waves crucially depends on the following prediction:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/hanoch-gutfreund/relatively-speaking_1_b_7314788.html
Hanoch Gutfreund: "The general theory of relativity predicts that time progresses slower in a stronger gravitational field than in a weaker one."
Actually the prediction is much more absurd than that: General relativity predicts that gravitational time dilation occurs even in a HOMOGENEOUS gravitational field ("the homogeneous gravitational field is the gravitational field which, in every point, has the same gradient of the potential. Such a field is produced by an infinite material plane with the constant surface density of mass"). That is, two clocks at different heights are in EXACTLY THE SAME immediate environment (experience EXACTLY THE SAME gravitational field) and yet one of them ticks faster than the other.
This means that, according to general relativity, the effect (gravitational time dilation) has no physical cause. "Effect without cause" is not a problem in Einstein schizophrenic world but clever Einsteinians feel uncomfortable from time to time and admit that there is no gravitational time dilation:
http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its-Roots-Banesh-Hoffmann/dp/0486406768
Banesh Hoffmann: "In an accelerated sky laboratory, and therefore also in the corresponding earth laboratory, the frequence of arrival of light pulses is lower than the ticking rate of the upper clocks even though all the clocks go at the same rate. (...) As a result the experimenter at the ceiling of the sky laboratory will see with his own eyes that the floor clock is going at a slower rate than the ceiling clock - even though, as I have stressed, both are going at the same rate. (...) The gravitational red shift does not arise from changes in the intrinsic rates of clocks. It arises from what befalls light signals as they traverse space and time in the presence of gravitation."
What befalls light signals as they traverse space and time in the presence of gravitation? They accelerate of course, just as ordinary falling objects do, and this variation of the speed of light (predicted by Newton's emission theory of light) causes the gravitational redshift (or blueshift):
http://courses.physics.illinois.edu/phys419/sp2013/Lectures/l13.pdf
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign: "Consider a falling object. ITS SPEED INCREASES AS IT IS FALLING. Hence, if we were to associate a frequency with that object the frequency should increase accordingly as it falls to earth. Because of the equivalence between gravitational and inertial mass, WE SHOULD OBSERVE THE SAME EFFECT FOR LIGHT. So lets shine a light beam from the top of a very tall building. If we can measure the frequency shift as the light beam descends the building, we should be able to discern how gravity affects a falling light beam. This was done by Pound and Rebka in 1960. They shone a light from the top of the Jefferson tower at Harvard and measured the frequency shift. The frequency shift was tiny but in agreement with the theoretical prediction."
http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/redshift_white_dwarfs
Albert Einstein Institute: "One of the three classical tests for general relativity is the gravitational redshift of light or other forms of electromagnetic radiation. However, in contrast to the other two tests - the gravitational deflection of light and the relativistic perihelion shift -, you do not need general relativity to derive the correct prediction for the gravitational redshift. A combination of Newtonian gravity, a particle theory of light, and the weak equivalence principle (gravitating mass equals inertial mass) suffices. (...) The gravitational redshift was first measured on earth in 1960-65 by Pound, Rebka, and Snider at Harvard University..."
And since there is no gravitational time dilation, there are no gravitational waves either.
Pentcho Valev
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/hanoch-gutfreund/relatively-speaking_1_b_7314788.html
Hanoch Gutfreund: "The general theory of relativity predicts that time progresses slower in a stronger gravitational field than in a weaker one."
Actually the prediction is much more absurd than that: General relativity predicts that gravitational time dilation occurs even in a HOMOGENEOUS gravitational field ("the homogeneous gravitational field is the gravitational field which, in every point, has the same gradient of the potential. Such a field is produced by an infinite material plane with the constant surface density of mass"). That is, two clocks at different heights are in EXACTLY THE SAME immediate environment (experience EXACTLY THE SAME gravitational field) and yet one of them ticks faster than the other.
This means that, according to general relativity, the effect (gravitational time dilation) has no physical cause. "Effect without cause" is not a problem in Einstein schizophrenic world but clever Einsteinians feel uncomfortable from time to time and admit that there is no gravitational time dilation:
http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its-Roots-Banesh-Hoffmann/dp/0486406768
Banesh Hoffmann: "In an accelerated sky laboratory, and therefore also in the corresponding earth laboratory, the frequence of arrival of light pulses is lower than the ticking rate of the upper clocks even though all the clocks go at the same rate. (...) As a result the experimenter at the ceiling of the sky laboratory will see with his own eyes that the floor clock is going at a slower rate than the ceiling clock - even though, as I have stressed, both are going at the same rate. (...) The gravitational red shift does not arise from changes in the intrinsic rates of clocks. It arises from what befalls light signals as they traverse space and time in the presence of gravitation."
What befalls light signals as they traverse space and time in the presence of gravitation? They accelerate of course, just as ordinary falling objects do, and this variation of the speed of light (predicted by Newton's emission theory of light) causes the gravitational redshift (or blueshift):
http://courses.physics.illinois.edu/phys419/sp2013/Lectures/l13.pdf
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign: "Consider a falling object. ITS SPEED INCREASES AS IT IS FALLING. Hence, if we were to associate a frequency with that object the frequency should increase accordingly as it falls to earth. Because of the equivalence between gravitational and inertial mass, WE SHOULD OBSERVE THE SAME EFFECT FOR LIGHT. So lets shine a light beam from the top of a very tall building. If we can measure the frequency shift as the light beam descends the building, we should be able to discern how gravity affects a falling light beam. This was done by Pound and Rebka in 1960. They shone a light from the top of the Jefferson tower at Harvard and measured the frequency shift. The frequency shift was tiny but in agreement with the theoretical prediction."
http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/redshift_white_dwarfs
Albert Einstein Institute: "One of the three classical tests for general relativity is the gravitational redshift of light or other forms of electromagnetic radiation. However, in contrast to the other two tests - the gravitational deflection of light and the relativistic perihelion shift -, you do not need general relativity to derive the correct prediction for the gravitational redshift. A combination of Newtonian gravity, a particle theory of light, and the weak equivalence principle (gravitating mass equals inertial mass) suffices. (...) The gravitational redshift was first measured on earth in 1960-65 by Pound, Rebka, and Snider at Harvard University..."
And since there is no gravitational time dilation, there are no gravitational waves either.
Pentcho Valev
David Fuller
Mar 21, 2016, 11:44:45 AM3/21/16
to
On Monday, March 21, 2016 at 3:27:40 AM UTC-5, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> The existence of gravitational waves crucially depends on the following prediction:
>
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/hanoch-gutfreund/relatively-speaking_1_b_7314788.html
> Hanoch Gutfreund: "The general theory of relativity predicts that time progresses slower in a stronger gravitational field than in a weaker one."
Yes ... Time progresses Slower because the impedance of the vacuum is Lower, the energy carrying capacity of space-time is LOWER, Light doesn't slow down, (Time waits) for the (speed of Light) to "Catch Up".
> The existence of gravitational waves crucially depends on the following prediction:
>
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/hanoch-gutfreund/relatively-speaking_1_b_7314788.html
> Hanoch Gutfreund: "The general theory of relativity predicts that time progresses slower in a stronger gravitational field than in a weaker one."
http://i68.tinypic.com/10sb4ab.jpg
http://i68.tinypic.com/2qjkqxv.jpg
http://i68.tinypic.com/xfn9rt.jpg
Pentcho Valev
Mar 26, 2016, 1:44:32 PM3/26/16
to
In Einstein schizophrenic world, Einstein himself does not know what his theory predicts. His followers uncover the predictions, confirm them experimentally and get the Nobel prize:
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/detection-gravitational-waves-breakthrough-whats-next-180958511/
Brian Greene: "Einstein himself had misgivings about his predication of gravitational waves. When first encountering the subtle equations of general relativity, it’s challenging to disentangle abstract math from measurable physics. Einstein was the first to engage in this tussle, and there were features that even he, the cynosure of relativity, failed to fully understand. But by the 1960s, scientists using more refined mathematical methods established beyond any doubt that gravitational waves were a distinguishing feature of the general theory of relativity."
http://arxiv.org/abs/1602.04674
"Around 1936, Einstein wrote to his close friend Max Born telling him that, together with Nathan Rosen, he had arrived at the interesting result that gravitational waves did not exist, though they had been assumed a certainty to the first approximation. He finally had found a mistake in his 1936 paper with Rosen and believed that gravitational waves do exist. However, in 1938, Einstein again obtained the result that there could be no gravitational waves!"
https://www.quantamagazine.org/20160218-gravitational-waves-kennefick-interview/
""There are no gravitational waves ... " ... "Plane gravitational waves, traveling along the positive X-axis, can therefore be found ... " ... " ... gravitational waves do not exist ... " ... "Do gravitational waves exist?" ... "It turns out that rigorous solutions exist ... " These are the words of Albert Einstein. For 20 years he equivocated about gravitational waves, unsure whether these undulations in the fabric of space and time were predicted or ruled out by his revolutionary 1915 theory of general relativity."
http://motls.blogspot.bg/2016/02/ligo-journal-servers-behind-scenes.html
Luboš Motl: " On September 9th, the LIGO folks were already convinced that they would discover the waves soon. Some of them were thinking what they would buy for the Nobel prize and all of them had to make an online vote about the journal where the discovery should be published. It has to be Physical Review Letters because PRL (published by the APS) is the best journal for the Nobel-prize-caliber papers, the LIGO members decided. Five days later, Advanced LIGO made the discovery. Four more days later, as you know, they officially started Advanced LIGO. ;-) "
Pentcho Valev
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/detection-gravitational-waves-breakthrough-whats-next-180958511/
Brian Greene: "Einstein himself had misgivings about his predication of gravitational waves. When first encountering the subtle equations of general relativity, it’s challenging to disentangle abstract math from measurable physics. Einstein was the first to engage in this tussle, and there were features that even he, the cynosure of relativity, failed to fully understand. But by the 1960s, scientists using more refined mathematical methods established beyond any doubt that gravitational waves were a distinguishing feature of the general theory of relativity."
http://arxiv.org/abs/1602.04674
"Around 1936, Einstein wrote to his close friend Max Born telling him that, together with Nathan Rosen, he had arrived at the interesting result that gravitational waves did not exist, though they had been assumed a certainty to the first approximation. He finally had found a mistake in his 1936 paper with Rosen and believed that gravitational waves do exist. However, in 1938, Einstein again obtained the result that there could be no gravitational waves!"
https://www.quantamagazine.org/20160218-gravitational-waves-kennefick-interview/
""There are no gravitational waves ... " ... "Plane gravitational waves, traveling along the positive X-axis, can therefore be found ... " ... " ... gravitational waves do not exist ... " ... "Do gravitational waves exist?" ... "It turns out that rigorous solutions exist ... " These are the words of Albert Einstein. For 20 years he equivocated about gravitational waves, unsure whether these undulations in the fabric of space and time were predicted or ruled out by his revolutionary 1915 theory of general relativity."
http://motls.blogspot.bg/2016/02/ligo-journal-servers-behind-scenes.html
Luboš Motl: " On September 9th, the LIGO folks were already convinced that they would discover the waves soon. Some of them were thinking what they would buy for the Nobel prize and all of them had to make an online vote about the journal where the discovery should be published. It has to be Physical Review Letters because PRL (published by the APS) is the best journal for the Nobel-prize-caliber papers, the LIGO members decided. Five days later, Advanced LIGO made the discovery. Four more days later, as you know, they officially started Advanced LIGO. ;-) "
Pentcho Valev
JanPB
Mar 26, 2016, 11:17:15 PM3/26/16
to
On Saturday, March 26, 2016 at 10:44:32 AM UTC-7, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> In Einstein schizophrenic world, Einstein himself does not know what his theory predicts. His followers uncover the predictions, confirm them experimentally and get the Nobel prize:
Oh, aren't we jealous now.
> In Einstein schizophrenic world, Einstein himself does not know what his theory predicts. His followers uncover the predictions, confirm them experimentally and get the Nobel prize:
--
Jan
David Fuller
Mar 27, 2016, 10:09:54 AM3/27/16
to
1 / (c / (((180 / pi)^(1 / 2)) / 376.730313)) = 6.70208678 × 10^-11
7 axis'* ((-7) * 2) faces
Gravity & Radiation both utilize Inverse Square Law
1/((1/G - c)/G)
1/(c*(((180/pi)^(1/2) - 0.5)^2)) / G = 1.00005314
http://pubs.rsc.org/services/images/RSCpubs.ePlatform.Service.FreeContent.ImageService.svc/ImageService/Articleimage/2005/DT/b503582c/b503582c-f15.gif
David Fuller
Mar 27, 2016, 10:12:32 AM3/27/16
to
David Fuller
Mar 27, 2016, 10:14:36 AM3/27/16
to
1 / (c * (137.5 / 2.75)) = 6.6712819 × 10^-11
1 / (300 000 000 * (137.5 / 2.75)) = 6.6666667e-11
Pentcho Valev
Mar 30, 2016, 11:58:10 AM3/30/16
to
LIGO conspirators will have to "discover" only black-hole-merger gravitational waves in the future - "discovering" gravitational waves produced by a different source would be too dangerous:
http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Science/Integral_sets_limits_on_gamma_rays_from_merging_black_holes
"Models predict that the merging of two stellar-mass black holes would not produce light at any wavelength, but if one or two neutron stars were involved in the process, then a characteristic signature should be observable across the electromagnetic spectrum. Another possible source of gravitational waves would be an asymmetric supernova explosion, also known to emit light over a range of wavelengths. (...) Integral is sensitive to transient sources of high-energy emission over the whole sky, and thus a team of scientists searched through its data, seeking signs of a sudden burst of hard X-rays or gamma rays that might have been recorded at the same time as the gravitational waves were detected. "We searched through all the available Integral data, but did not find any indication of high-energy emission associated with the LIGO detection," says Volodymyr Savchenko of the François Arago Centre in Paris, France. Volodymyr is the lead author of a paper reporting the results, published today in Astrophysical Journal Letters. (...) Subsequent analysis of the LIGO data has shown that the gravitational waves were produced by a pair of coalescing black holes, each with a mass roughly 30 times that of our Sun, located about 1.3 billion light years away. Scientists do not expect to see any significant emission of light at any wavelength from such events, and thus Integral's null detection is consistent with this scenario. (...) The only exception was the Gamma-Ray Burst Monitor on NASA's Fermi Gamma-Ray Space Telescope, which observed what appears to be a sudden burst of gamma rays about 0.4 seconds after the gravitational waves were detected. The burst lasted about one second and came from a region of the sky that overlaps with the strip identified by LIGO. This detection sparked a bounty of theoretical investigations, proposing possible scenarios in which two merging black holes of stellar mass could indeed have released gamma rays along with the gravitational waves. However, if this gamma-ray flare had had a cosmic origin, either linked to the LIGO gravitational wave source or to any other astrophysical phenomenon in the Universe, it should have been detected by Integral as well. The absence of any such detection by both instruments on Integral suggests that the measurement from Fermi could be unrelated to the gravitational wave detection."
Pentcho Valev
http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Science/Integral_sets_limits_on_gamma_rays_from_merging_black_holes
"Models predict that the merging of two stellar-mass black holes would not produce light at any wavelength, but if one or two neutron stars were involved in the process, then a characteristic signature should be observable across the electromagnetic spectrum. Another possible source of gravitational waves would be an asymmetric supernova explosion, also known to emit light over a range of wavelengths. (...) Integral is sensitive to transient sources of high-energy emission over the whole sky, and thus a team of scientists searched through its data, seeking signs of a sudden burst of hard X-rays or gamma rays that might have been recorded at the same time as the gravitational waves were detected. "We searched through all the available Integral data, but did not find any indication of high-energy emission associated with the LIGO detection," says Volodymyr Savchenko of the François Arago Centre in Paris, France. Volodymyr is the lead author of a paper reporting the results, published today in Astrophysical Journal Letters. (...) Subsequent analysis of the LIGO data has shown that the gravitational waves were produced by a pair of coalescing black holes, each with a mass roughly 30 times that of our Sun, located about 1.3 billion light years away. Scientists do not expect to see any significant emission of light at any wavelength from such events, and thus Integral's null detection is consistent with this scenario. (...) The only exception was the Gamma-Ray Burst Monitor on NASA's Fermi Gamma-Ray Space Telescope, which observed what appears to be a sudden burst of gamma rays about 0.4 seconds after the gravitational waves were detected. The burst lasted about one second and came from a region of the sky that overlaps with the strip identified by LIGO. This detection sparked a bounty of theoretical investigations, proposing possible scenarios in which two merging black holes of stellar mass could indeed have released gamma rays along with the gravitational waves. However, if this gamma-ray flare had had a cosmic origin, either linked to the LIGO gravitational wave source or to any other astrophysical phenomenon in the Universe, it should have been detected by Integral as well. The absence of any such detection by both instruments on Integral suggests that the measurement from Fermi could be unrelated to the gravitational wave detection."
Pentcho Valev
Bimpy
Mar 31, 2016, 5:54:15 PM3/31/16
to
Pentcho Valev wrote:
> http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Science/
form for light, EM, as both travel at a same speed (allegedly).
> http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Science/
Integral_sets_limits_on_gamma_rays_from_merging_black_holes
> "Models predict that the merging of two stellar-mass black holes would
> not produce light at any wavelength, but if one or two neutron stars
were
Hmm, since I believe that gravity waves, if existent, must be just another
> "Models predict that the merging of two stellar-mass black holes would
> not produce light at any wavelength, but if one or two neutron stars
were
form for light, EM, as both travel at a same speed (allegedly).
Bimpy
Mar 31, 2016, 6:04:53 PM3/31/16
to
strong atomic interaction must also travel at c. However no, in quantum
physics the interactions are instantaneous. I have no idea.
David Fuller
Apr 1, 2016, 10:54:35 AM4/1/16
to
Gravity is "throttling" electromagnetic raditaion by way of the impedance of the vacuum.
c is the speed of causality.
G*c*16pi = 1.0057
.16 * pi = 0.50265482457
1 / (2 * pi) = 0.15915494309
15.915494309 * pi = 49.999999999
Truncated octahedral tessellation
http://i68.tinypic.com/xfn9rt.jpg
c is the speed of causality.
G*c*16pi = 1.0057
.16 * pi = 0.50265482457
1 / (2 * pi) = 0.15915494309
15.915494309 * pi = 49.999999999
Truncated octahedral tessellation
http://i68.tinypic.com/xfn9rt.jpg
David Fuller
Apr 1, 2016, 11:41:03 AM4/1/16
to
40075000/sqrt(5.9722 * 10^24 /6371000*(2/3 * 10^-10) = 5069.39102388 seconds
If the earths period of rotation was 5070 seconds, the acceleration of Gravity would be neutral.
40075000 m /5070 s= 7904 m/s
If the earths period of rotation was 5070 seconds, the acceleration of Gravity would be neutral.
40075000 m /5070 s= 7904 m/s
David Fuller
Apr 1, 2016, 11:42:51 AM4/1/16
to
sqrt((40 075 000 / 5070) / pi) = 50.1600371529
David Fuller
Apr 1, 2016, 11:45:01 AM4/1/16
to
sqrt((40 075 000 / 5070) / pi) / (16 * pi) = 0.99790223232
David Fuller
Apr 1, 2016, 12:04:26 PM4/1/16
to
(c / 7904m/s) / (376.730313 * 2) = 50.3399998 m / s
David Fuller
Apr 1, 2016, 12:17:40 PM4/1/16
to
(376.730313 * 4) / 1507 = 0.99994774518
1507 / 137 = 11
1508 / 377 = 4
(11+4)^2 - (4*11*2) = 137
1507 / 137 = 11
1508 / 377 = 4
(11+4)^2 - (4*11*2) = 137
David Fuller
Apr 1, 2016, 12:19:51 PM4/1/16
to
((11 + 4)^2) - (4 * 7 * pi) = 137.035405699
David Fuller
Apr 1, 2016, 1:13:05 PM4/1/16
to
On Friday, April 1, 2016 at 11:19:51 AM UTC-5, David Fuller wrote:
> ((11 + 4)^2) - (4 * 7 * pi) = 137.035405699
(49.9911485752 / 7) / (4 + pi) = 1
> ((11 + 4)^2) - (4 * 7 * pi) = 137.035405699
Pentcho Valev
Apr 4, 2016, 1:02:21 PM4/4/16
to
An interesting question in StackExchange:
http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/247376/final-moment-of-the-black-hole-merger-in-the-ligo-publication-means-what
"The second paragraph of the LIGO publication talks about the "final moments of the black hole merger" and figure 3 assigns a time scale of less than a second for this to happen. This suggest that black holes merging is a split-second event like two cars crashing into each other. How does this fit with the derivation that an object falling into a black whole will take forever to reach the event horizon --- at least when measured in our frame of reference? Should this not even more be the case for one black hole falling into the other? I would have thought that in particular the "final moments" are stretched out to infinity. Can someone explain the particular meaning of these 0.45 seconds mentioned in the graph?"
Let's see what answers Einsteinians will give.
Pentcho Valev
http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/247376/final-moment-of-the-black-hole-merger-in-the-ligo-publication-means-what
"The second paragraph of the LIGO publication talks about the "final moments of the black hole merger" and figure 3 assigns a time scale of less than a second for this to happen. This suggest that black holes merging is a split-second event like two cars crashing into each other. How does this fit with the derivation that an object falling into a black whole will take forever to reach the event horizon --- at least when measured in our frame of reference? Should this not even more be the case for one black hole falling into the other? I would have thought that in particular the "final moments" are stretched out to infinity. Can someone explain the particular meaning of these 0.45 seconds mentioned in the graph?"
Let's see what answers Einsteinians will give.
Pentcho Valev
The Starmaker
Apr 5, 2016, 3:35:20 AM4/5/16
to
Pentcho Valev wrote:
>
> An interesting question in StackExchange:
>
> http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/247376/final-moment-of-the-black-hole-merger-in-the-ligo-publication-means-what
>
>
>
> An interesting question in StackExchange:
>
> http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/247376/final-moment-of-the-black-hole-merger-in-the-ligo-publication-means-what
>
>
> Let's see what answers Einsteinians will give.
>
> Pentcho Valev
it is the time delay...
>
> Pentcho Valev
when communicating with a satilite...
a drift
of a few miles
a day.
Pentcho Valev
Apr 7, 2016, 10:09:11 AM4/7/16
to
LIGO conspirators are getting even more enigmatic:
http://phys.org/news/2016-04-ligo-background-noise-due-gravity.html
"Prior to the landmark experiments that led to the detection of gravitational waves, researchers believed that there was likely a very nearly constant stream of background gravitational noise moving through the cosmos, generated by black holes and neutron stars merging, but had lacked any physical data that might allow them to estimate how much background noise might exist. With the detection of the gravitational waves that resulted from the merger of two binary black holes, the researchers suddenly found themselves with actual concrete data, which they have now used as a basis for calculating the likely amount of gravitational wave noise constantly bombarding our planet. To make predictions based on data from just one event, the team started with the assumption that the event that was measured was not one that was out of the ordinary... (...) Doing so, the team reports, indicated that there are likely 20 times as many black hole binaries out there as has been estimated, which suggests that there is likely 10 times as much gravitational noise than has been suspected. The team acknowledges that because their results are based on a data from just one event, their conclusions could be wrong, but, if they are right, they note, they should be able to detect them within just the next five years or so as the LIGO and Virgo detectors grow to full strength."
Why should "whopping big signals" (see below) be regarded as noise whose detection will be postponed for five years? If black hole binaries are so frequent, isn't it logical to have, without any delay, multiple detections like the one that allegedly occurred on 14 September 2015?
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/feb/09/watch-this-spacetime-gravitational-wave-discovery-expected
"People are hugely excited. The rumour is that it's a whopping big signal, in other words, it's unambiguous, and that is fantastic," said Pedro Ferreira, professor of astrophysics at Oxford University, and author of the 2014 book, The Perfect Theory: a century of geniuses and the battle over general relativity."
Pentcho Valev
http://phys.org/news/2016-04-ligo-background-noise-due-gravity.html
"Prior to the landmark experiments that led to the detection of gravitational waves, researchers believed that there was likely a very nearly constant stream of background gravitational noise moving through the cosmos, generated by black holes and neutron stars merging, but had lacked any physical data that might allow them to estimate how much background noise might exist. With the detection of the gravitational waves that resulted from the merger of two binary black holes, the researchers suddenly found themselves with actual concrete data, which they have now used as a basis for calculating the likely amount of gravitational wave noise constantly bombarding our planet. To make predictions based on data from just one event, the team started with the assumption that the event that was measured was not one that was out of the ordinary... (...) Doing so, the team reports, indicated that there are likely 20 times as many black hole binaries out there as has been estimated, which suggests that there is likely 10 times as much gravitational noise than has been suspected. The team acknowledges that because their results are based on a data from just one event, their conclusions could be wrong, but, if they are right, they note, they should be able to detect them within just the next five years or so as the LIGO and Virgo detectors grow to full strength."
Why should "whopping big signals" (see below) be regarded as noise whose detection will be postponed for five years? If black hole binaries are so frequent, isn't it logical to have, without any delay, multiple detections like the one that allegedly occurred on 14 September 2015?
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/feb/09/watch-this-spacetime-gravitational-wave-discovery-expected
"People are hugely excited. The rumour is that it's a whopping big signal, in other words, it's unambiguous, and that is fantastic," said Pedro Ferreira, professor of astrophysics at Oxford University, and author of the 2014 book, The Perfect Theory: a century of geniuses and the battle over general relativity."
Pentcho Valev
Pentcho Valev
Apr 11, 2016, 7:40:27 AM4/11/16
to
LIGO in trouble?
http://www.skeptic.com/upcoming-lectures/
Gravitational Waves, Black Holes and the Nature of the Cosmos, Event Date: Sunday, Apr. 10, 2016 at 2 pm, Speaker: Dr. Janna Levin, Tickets: $50 per individual (includes a reserved seat, autographed copy of the guest's book, hors d'oeuvres and wine).
https://twitter.com/michaelshermer/status/719250570280722432?lang=en
In case you missed earlier post: Janna Levin livestream today 2pm PST talking about black holes & gravity waves https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hoa8obIWDOc&feature=youtu.be
Yesterday Janna Levin's talk was still advertised on youtube, there was a countdown video, but now there is nothing. Instead, the following article was published an hour ago:
https://aeon.co/essays/how-joe-weber-s-gravity-ripples-turned-out-to-be-all-noise
"How Joe Weber's gravity ripples turned out to be all noise" by Janna Levin. "This past February [2016], physicists working on the LIGO experiment reported the discovery of gravitational waves, spacetime ripples predicted by Einstein's general theory of relativity. It was instantly hailed as a sure bet for a Nobel Prize. But 47 years earlier, a now-forgotten pioneer wowed the world with exactly the same claim."
Pentcho Valev
http://www.skeptic.com/upcoming-lectures/
Gravitational Waves, Black Holes and the Nature of the Cosmos, Event Date: Sunday, Apr. 10, 2016 at 2 pm, Speaker: Dr. Janna Levin, Tickets: $50 per individual (includes a reserved seat, autographed copy of the guest's book, hors d'oeuvres and wine).
https://twitter.com/michaelshermer/status/719250570280722432?lang=en
In case you missed earlier post: Janna Levin livestream today 2pm PST talking about black holes & gravity waves https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hoa8obIWDOc&feature=youtu.be
Yesterday Janna Levin's talk was still advertised on youtube, there was a countdown video, but now there is nothing. Instead, the following article was published an hour ago:
https://aeon.co/essays/how-joe-weber-s-gravity-ripples-turned-out-to-be-all-noise
"How Joe Weber's gravity ripples turned out to be all noise" by Janna Levin. "This past February [2016], physicists working on the LIGO experiment reported the discovery of gravitational waves, spacetime ripples predicted by Einstein's general theory of relativity. It was instantly hailed as a sure bet for a Nobel Prize. But 47 years earlier, a now-forgotten pioneer wowed the world with exactly the same claim."
Pentcho Valev
Carl Susumu
Apr 11, 2016, 5:44:46 PM4/11/16
to
The detection of LIGO gravity waves is based on gravity waves that have the frequency of sound yet sound does not propagate in the vacuum of celestial space.
Gary Harnagel
Apr 11, 2016, 5:59:30 PM4/11/16
to
Carl Susumu
Apr 11, 2016, 6:06:48 PM4/11/16
to
On 11 February 2016, the LIGO collaboration announced the detection of gravitational waves, from a signal detected at 09:50:45 GMT on 14 September 2015[60] of two black holes with masses of 29 and 36 solar masses merging about 1.3 billion light years away. During the final fraction of a second of the merge, it released more power than 50 times that of all the stars in the observable universe combined.[61] The signal increases in frequency from 35 to 250 Hz as it rises in strength.[7]
___________________________________
Wiki says 35 to 250 Hz which seem to me like sound waves.
___________________________________
Wiki says 35 to 250 Hz which seem to me like sound waves.
paparios
Apr 11, 2016, 7:37:34 PM4/11/16
to
Carl Susumu
Apr 11, 2016, 10:39:20 PM4/11/16
to
THen pretofluff what is the frequency of a gravity wave.]?
Koobee Wublee
Apr 12, 2016, 2:31:53 AM4/12/16
to
On Monday, March 21, 2016 at 1:27:40 AM UTC-7, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> "Gravitational Waves cannot Exist"
Yes, this is obvious from the very mathematics itself. From the equation describing a segment of spacetime, we have:
** dS² = [g]_ij d[q]^i d[q]^j
Where
** dS = Segment of spacetime
** [g] = matrix that represents the metric
** [q] = matrix that represents the coordinate system
It is very fvcking clear that an observer using the said coordinate system is observing an event taking place. In order to argue for gravitational waves, the coordinate system must be describing the space that the event is located which is absolutely fvcking ludicrous. Einstein dingleberries are just so fvcking stupid and desperate trying to pitch shit as food. <shrug>
> "Gravitational Waves cannot Exist"
Yes, this is obvious from the very mathematics itself. From the equation describing a segment of spacetime, we have:
** dS² = [g]_ij d[q]^i d[q]^j
Where
** dS = Segment of spacetime
** [g] = matrix that represents the metric
** [q] = matrix that represents the coordinate system
It is very fvcking clear that an observer using the said coordinate system is observing an event taking place. In order to argue for gravitational waves, the coordinate system must be describing the space that the event is located which is absolutely fvcking ludicrous. Einstein dingleberries are just so fvcking stupid and desperate trying to pitch shit as food. <shrug>
Mikkel Haaheim
Apr 12, 2016, 2:58:15 AM4/12/16
to
Carl,
You are confusing the period of an oscillation with the source of that oscillation. Rotation produces an socillating state, as does vibration, as does simple on/off switching. The DC current in a lightbulb typically is designed to oscillate at 60 hz. A child's top could easily oscillate at 60 hz. The frequencies of both would therefor be the same, but a top is not an oscilating current.
You are confusing the period of an oscillation with the source of that oscillation. Rotation produces an socillating state, as does vibration, as does simple on/off switching. The DC current in a lightbulb typically is designed to oscillate at 60 hz. A child's top could easily oscillate at 60 hz. The frequencies of both would therefor be the same, but a top is not an oscilating current.
mlwo...@wp.pl
Apr 12, 2016, 3:13:51 AM4/12/16
to
have heard about it.
So, speaking of frequency, you should also mention
frame of reference, shouldn't you?
Carl Susumu
Apr 12, 2016, 4:56:13 PM4/12/16
to
Mick said:
You are confusing the period of an oscillation with the source of that oscillation. Rotation produces an socillating state, as does vibration, as does simple on/off switching. The DC current in a lightbulb typically is designed to oscillate at 60 hz. A child's top could easily oscillate at 60 hz. The frequencies of both would therefor be the same, but a top is not an oscilating current.
_____________________________________________________________
You are confusing the period of an oscillation with the source of that oscillation. Rotation produces an socillating state, as does vibration, as does simple on/off switching. The DC current in a lightbulb typically is designed to oscillate at 60 hz. A child's top could easily oscillate at 60 hz. The frequencies of both would therefor be the same, but a top is not an oscilating current.
I like your light bulb deception but Mick their called gravitational waves; therefore, their must have a frequency, right.. give it to me baby. Your daddies calling you.
..
.
0 new messages