Gravitational wave ‘radar’ could help map the invisible universe

[israel socratus]

Gravitational wave ‘radar’ could help map the invisible universe
Such “GRADAR” signals could spot globs of dark matter
or very distant neutron stars
By Asa Stahl, JUNE 22, 2022 AT 7:00 AM
---
It sounds like the setup for a joke: If radio waves give you radar and
sound gives you sonar, what do gravitational waves get you?
----
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/gravitational-wave-radar-map-invisible-universe-spacetime-dark-matter

[Dale]

On 6/23/2022 10:01 PM, israel socratus wrote:
> Gravitational wave ‘radar’

but protons don't have weight?

--
Mystery? -> https://www.dalekelly.org/

[jillery]

On Fri, 24 Jun 2022 14:12:21 -0400, Dale <da...@dalekelly.org> wrote:

>On 6/23/2022 10:01 PM, israel socratus wrote:
>> Gravitational wave ‘radar’
>
>but protons don't have weight?

Since when?

--
You're entitled to your own opinions.
You're not entitled to your own facts.

[Dale]

On 6/24/2022 3:28 PM, jillery wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Jun 2022 14:12:21 -0400, Dale <da...@dalekelly.org> wrote:
>
>> On 6/23/2022 10:01 PM, israel socratus wrote:
>>> Gravitational wave ‘radar’
>>
>> but protons don't have weight?
>
>
> Since when?
>

got it wrong ...

THANK YOU

it is not always Photons either?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon

"The photon's invariant mass (also called "rest mass" for massive
particles) is believed to be exactly zero. This is the notion of
particle mass generally used by modern physicists. The photon does have
a nonzero relativistic mass, depending on its energy, but this varies
according to the frame of reference."

am not a relativity expert ...

[J. J. Lodder]

No need to. Forget about 'relativistic mass',
and throw away all popularised relativity books in which it occurs,

Jan

[Dale]

the definition is an illusion?

still a concept?

all I need to be is an abstract artist

[J. J. Lodder]

Just obsolete, because not the best way of understanding things,

Jan

[israel socratus]

Gravitational waves are the weakest interference in the cosmic grid . . . . Correct?

[jillery]

On Sat, 25 Jun 2022 06:28:58 -0700 (PDT), israel socratus
<socrat...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Gravitational waves are the weakest interference in the cosmic grid . . . . Correct?

That depends on what you mean by "weakest interference". They're not
the same as electromagnetic light or radio waves, and so they don't
interfere with each other. OTOH gravity waves detected by LIGO et al
have amplitudes on the order of a fraction of a proton's diameter.

[israel socratus]

------------------
Gravity mysteries: Why is gravity so weak?
10 June 2009
----
Gravity is a real weakling – 1040 times weaker than the electromagnetic force that holds atoms together.
---
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20227122-900-gravity-mysteries-why-is-gravity-so-weak/#:~:text=Gravity%20is%20a%20real%20weakling,Gravity%20is%20the%20misfit.

[Bill]

jillery wrote:

> On Sat, 25 Jun 2022 06:28:58 -0700 (PDT), israel socratus
> <socrat...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Gravitational waves are the weakest interference in the cosmic grid . . .
>>. Correct?
>
>
> That depends on what you mean by "weakest interference". They're not
> the same as electromagnetic light or radio waves, and so they don't
> interfere with each other. OTOH gravity waves detected by LIGO et al
> have amplitudes on the order of a fraction of a proton's diameter.
>

That's pretty much the same as saying they don't exist. Even so, people have
come to accept gravity is real to it must be, whether it's detectable or
not.

Bill

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 26 Jun 2022 03:51:06 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by israel socratus
<socrat...@gmail.com>:

That should be "10^40", a slightly different ratio.

Proofreading before hitting "Send" is usually of some
value... ;-)
>
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 24 Jun 2022 14:12:21 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Dale <da...@dalekelly.org>:

>On 6/23/2022 10:01 PM, israel socratus wrote:
>> Gravitational wave ‘radar’
>
>but protons don't have weight?
>

Non sequitur. Plus, where did you get that silly idea?

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 26 Jun 2022 09:49:49 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bill <fre...@gmail.com>:

>jillery wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 25 Jun 2022 06:28:58 -0700 (PDT), israel socratus
>> <socrat...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Gravitational waves are the weakest interference in the cosmic grid . . .
>>>. Correct?
>>
>>
>> That depends on what you mean by "weakest interference". They're not
>> the same as electromagnetic light or radio waves, and so they don't
>> interfere with each other. OTOH gravity waves detected by LIGO et al
>> have amplitudes on the order of a fraction of a proton's diameter.
>>
>
>That's pretty much the same as saying they don't exist.
>

No, it's not. If they're detectable, and detected, they
exist. Your assertion is exactly the same as claiming that
since protons are so small they essentially don't exist.

>
> Even so, people have
>come to accept gravity is real to it must be, whether it's detectable or
>not.
>
>Bill

[jillery]

On Sun, 26 Jun 2022 09:49:49 -0500, Bill <fre...@gmail.com> wrote:

>jillery wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 25 Jun 2022 06:28:58 -0700 (PDT), israel socratus
>> <socrat...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Gravitational waves are the weakest interference in the cosmic grid . . .
>>>. Correct?
>>
>>
>> That depends on what you mean by "weakest interference". They're not
>> the same as electromagnetic light or radio waves, and so they don't
>> interfere with each other. OTOH gravity waves detected by LIGO et al
>> have amplitudes on the order of a fraction of a proton's diameter.
>>
>
>That's pretty much the same as saying they don't exist.

Any non-zero value, no matter how small is not zero, by definition.

>Even so, people have
>come to accept gravity is real to it must be, whether it's detectable or
>not.

You're conflating gravity and gravitational waves. They are not the
same thing.

[J. J. Lodder]

Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:

> On Sun, 26 Jun 2022 03:51:06 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by israel socratus
> <socrat...@gmail.com>:
>
> >On Sunday, June 26, 2022 at 7:45:20 AM UTC+3, jillery wrote:
> >> On Sat, 25 Jun 2022 06:28:58 -0700 (PDT), israel socratus
> >> <socrat...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Gravitational waves are the weakest interference in the cosmic grid . . .
. Correct?
> >> That depends on what you mean by "weakest interference". They're not
> >> the same as electromagnetic light or radio waves, and so they don't
> >> interfere with each other. OTOH gravity waves detected by LIGO et al
> >> have amplitudes on the order of a fraction of a proton's diameter.
> >> --
> >> You're entitled to your own opinions.
> >> You're not entitled to your own facts.
> >------------------
> >Gravity mysteries: Why is gravity so weak?
> >10 June 2009
> >----

> >Gravity is a real weakling ˆ 1040 times weaker than the electromagnetic force

that holds atoms together.
> >---
> >https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20227122-900-gravity-mysteries-why-is-
gravity-so-weak/#:~:text=Gravity%20is%20a%20real%20weakling,Gravity%20is%20the%20misfit.
> >
> That should be "10^40", a slightly different ratio.
>
> Proofreading before hitting "Send" is usually of some
> value... ;-)

Even worse, the whole question is meaningless.
The electromagnetic coupling constant, \alpha,
is 'naturally' dimensionless.
The gravitational constant is not,
it naturally has the dimension [Mass]^-2

So direct comparisons are meaningless. [1]
You need to assume a mass scale for that,

Jan

So it is not gravity that is weak,
it is electrons and protons that are so very light.
(wait for a TOE for explanations)

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 27 Jun 2022 10:16:18 +0200, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
Lodder):

>Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 26 Jun 2022 03:51:06 -0700 (PDT), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by israel socratus
>> <socrat...@gmail.com>:
>>
>> >On Sunday, June 26, 2022 at 7:45:20 AM UTC+3, jillery wrote:
>> >> On Sat, 25 Jun 2022 06:28:58 -0700 (PDT), israel socratus
>> >> <socrat...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Gravitational waves are the weakest interference in the cosmic grid . . .
>. Correct?
>> >> That depends on what you mean by "weakest interference". They're not
>> >> the same as electromagnetic light or radio waves, and so they don't
>> >> interfere with each other. OTOH gravity waves detected by LIGO et al
>> >> have amplitudes on the order of a fraction of a proton's diameter.
>> >> --
>> >> You're entitled to your own opinions.
>> >> You're not entitled to your own facts.
>> >------------------
>> >Gravity mysteries: Why is gravity so weak?
>> >10 June 2009
>> >----

>> >Gravity is a real weakling à 1040 times weaker than the electromagnetic force

> that holds atoms together.
>> >---
>> >https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20227122-900-gravity-mysteries-why-is-
>gravity-so-weak/#:~:text=Gravity%20is%20a%20real%20weakling,Gravity%20is%20the%20misfit.
>> >
>> That should be "10^40", a slightly different ratio.
>>
>> Proofreading before hitting "Send" is usually of some
>> value... ;-)
>
>Even worse, the whole question is meaningless.
>The electromagnetic coupling constant, \alpha,
>is 'naturally' dimensionless.
>The gravitational constant is not,
>it naturally has the dimension [Mass]^-2
>
>So direct comparisons are meaningless. [1]
>You need to assume a mass scale for that,
>
>Jan
>
>So it is not gravity that is weak,
>it is electrons and protons that are so very light.
>(wait for a TOE for explanations)
>

Point(s) taken, but every time I've seen the "strengths" of
forces compared it's been done as this article does:

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/what-is-the-amplitude-of-a-gravitational-wave-at-the-source.861314/

It may be wrong in a strict sense, but it does make some
comparisons of effects possible.

[israel socratus]

EM force is active, gravity mass is passive and therefore
(when they interact) the coefficient 10^40 is possible.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 26 Jun 2022 17:19:17 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:

>On Fri, 24 Jun 2022 14:12:21 -0400, the following appeared
>in talk.origins, posted by Dale <da...@dalekelly.org>:
>
>>On 6/23/2022 10:01 PM, israel socratus wrote:
>>> Gravitational wave ‘radar’
>>
>>but protons don't have weight?
>>
>Non sequitur. Plus, where did you get that silly idea?
>>

Well?

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 26 Jun 2022 17:20:17 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:

>On Sun, 26 Jun 2022 09:49:49 -0500, the following appeared
>in talk.origins, posted by Bill <fre...@gmail.com>:
>
>>jillery wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 25 Jun 2022 06:28:58 -0700 (PDT), israel socratus
>>> <socrat...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Gravitational waves are the weakest interference in the cosmic grid . . .
>>>>. Correct?
>>>
>>>
>>> That depends on what you mean by "weakest interference". They're not
>>> the same as electromagnetic light or radio waves, and so they don't
>>> interfere with each other. OTOH gravity waves detected by LIGO et al
>>> have amplitudes on the order of a fraction of a proton's diameter.
>>>
>>
>>That's pretty much the same as saying they don't exist.
>>
>No, it's not. If they're detectable, and detected, they
>exist. Your assertion is exactly the same as claiming that
>since protons are so small they essentially don't exist.
>>

No comment? OK, no real surprise.

>
>> Even so, people have
>>come to accept gravity is real to it must be, whether it's detectable or
>>not.
>>

Missed that howler in my earlier read. Can I assume by that
comment ("...have come to accept gravity is real [s]o it
must be..."; IOW it's accepted without evidence) that you
are not one of those who accept that gravity is real? Have
you tested that opinion? Any tall buildings in your area?

[William Hyde]

On Sunday, June 26, 2022 at 8:20:22 PM UTC-4, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Jun 2022 14:12:21 -0400, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by Dale <da...@dalekelly.org>:
> >On 6/23/2022 10:01 PM, israel socratus wrote:
> >> Gravitational wave ‘radar’
> >
> >but protons don't have weight?
> >
> Non sequitur. Plus, where did you get that silly idea?

Ideas are quantized, of course. Stupid ideas and anti-stupid ideas form in virtual pairs below the
Heisenberg limit. Mostly they then meet and annihilate, but sometimes they are given energy
by something else, and become real. That donor is Dale (have you noticed how low-energy his
posts are?) who is thus surrounded by a sea of stupid and anti-stupid ideas.

But the Rev Dale has dark enemies, and Maxwell's demon has been ordered to see that the anti-stupid ideas
never reach him.

Dale senses the actions of this demon, and thus puts a question mark at the end of all ideas that
come to him.


I await my Nobel prize in quantum theology.

And what the hell, set theory.

William Hyde

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 28 Jun 2022 14:40:06 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by William Hyde
<wthyd...@gmail.com>:

So all that's missing is winning the Chef's Challenge... ;-)

But seriously, I'd really like to know where Dale got that
particular idea, but he's being shy.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 26 Jun 2022 09:49:49 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bill <fre...@gmail.com>:

[Repost]

>jillery wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 25 Jun 2022 06:28:58 -0700 (PDT), israel socratus
>> <socrat...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Gravitational waves are the weakest interference in the cosmic grid . . .
>>>. Correct?
>>
>>
>> That depends on what you mean by "weakest interference". They're not
>> the same as electromagnetic light or radio waves, and so they don't
>> interfere with each other. OTOH gravity waves detected by LIGO et al
>> have amplitudes on the order of a fraction of a proton's diameter.
>>
>
>That's pretty much the same as saying they don't exist.
>

No, it's not. If they're detectable, and detected, they
exist. Your assertion is exactly the same as claiming that

since protons are so small they essentially don't exist.

>
> Even so, people have
>come to accept gravity is real to it must be, whether it's detectable or
>not.
>
>Bill

[J. J. Lodder]

> >> >Gravity is a real weakling √ 1040 times weaker than the electromagnetic fo

Whatever ratio you take a fancy too,
as long as you compare things with the same dimension,
in the particular unit system that you take a fancy too.

Have your own fun in your own way,

Jan

[israel socratus]

> > >> That should be "10^40", a slightly different ratio.
> > >>

> > >Even worse, the whole question is meaningless.
> > >The electromagnetic coupling constant, \alpha,
> > >is 'naturally' dimensionless.
> > >The gravitational constant is not,
> > >it naturally has the dimension [Mass]^-2
> > >
> > >So direct comparisons are meaningless. [1]
> > >You need to assume a mass scale for that,
> > >
> > >Jan
> >

> > It may be wrong in a strict sense, but it does make some
> > comparisons of effects possible.
> Whatever ratio you take a fancy too,
> as long as you compare things with the same dimension,
> in the particular unit system that you take a fancy too.
>
> Have your own fun in your own way,
>
> Jan

-------------------
1 - Take the constant speed of light and compare things to the earth dimension.
For example: 1sec=10m, 2 sec=20m, . . . 100m = 10 sec . . ,
(that is fancy ratio, because in nature, any motion is relative)

2 - The entrance of the nail into the tree depends on the force of the blow with a hammer.
The amount of mass and energy determines the gravitational effect and the deviation
of a quantum of light from a straight path (light bending).
The relationship/ratio between EM force and gravity has the same structure.
This is a scientific ratio.
------------------

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 9 Jul 2022 09:35:50 +0200, the following appeared in

>> >> >Gravity is a real weakling ? 1040 times weaker than the electromagnetic fo

I usually do, but thanks for the permission.

So, no comment on the article I cited? Or *was* that a
comment on the article? It's a bit ambiguous...

[Bill]

Bob Casanova wrote:

> On Sun, 26 Jun 2022 09:49:49 -0500, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by Bill <fre...@gmail.com>:
>
> [Repost]
>
>>jillery wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 25 Jun 2022 06:28:58 -0700 (PDT), israel socratus
>>> <socrat...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Gravitational waves are the weakest interference in the cosmic grid . .
>>>>. . Correct?
>>>
>>>
>>> That depends on what you mean by "weakest interference". They're not
>>> the same as electromagnetic light or radio waves, and so they don't
>>> interfere with each other. OTOH gravity waves detected by LIGO et al
>>> have amplitudes on the order of a fraction of a proton's diameter.
>>>
>>
>>That's pretty much the same as saying they don't exist.
>>
> No, it's not. If they're detectable, and detected, they
> exist. Your assertion is exactly the same as claiming that
> since protons are so small they essentially don't exist.
>>
>> Even so, people have
>>come to accept gravity is real to it must be, whether it's detectable or
>>not.
>>
>>Bill

Gravity is the alleged force through which one massive object attracts
another. This necessarily means that there must be at least two massive
objects that together, create gravity. One massive object neither generates
nor responds to gravity and that must mean there is no gravity for single
massive objects. It's cosmic alchemy where nothing transmutes into
something.

Bill

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 09 Jul 2022 13:21:50 -0500, the following appeared

in talk.origins, posted by Bill <fre...@gmail.com>:

>Bob Casanova wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 26 Jun 2022 09:49:49 -0500, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by Bill <fre...@gmail.com>:
>>
>> [Repost]
>>
>>>jillery wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 25 Jun 2022 06:28:58 -0700 (PDT), israel socratus
>>>> <socrat...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Gravitational waves are the weakest interference in the cosmic grid . .
>>>>>. . Correct?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That depends on what you mean by "weakest interference". They're not
>>>> the same as electromagnetic light or radio waves, and so they don't
>>>> interfere with each other. OTOH gravity waves detected by LIGO et al
>>>> have amplitudes on the order of a fraction of a proton's diameter.
>>>>
>>>
>>>That's pretty much the same as saying they don't exist.
>>>
>> No, it's not. If they're detectable, and detected, they
>> exist. Your assertion is exactly the same as claiming that
>> since protons are so small they essentially don't exist.
>>>

No comment on this, not even the usual BillWaffle? No
surprise.

>
>>> Even so, people have
>>>come to accept gravity is real to it must be, whether it's detectable or
>>>not.
>

As I noted in a later post, I missed that; here was my
response. Care to comment?
**************************************************

Missed that howler in my earlier read. Can I assume by that
comment ("...have come to accept gravity is real [s]o it
must be..."; IOW it's accepted without evidence) that you
are not one of those who accept that gravity is real? Have
you tested that opinion? Any tall buildings in your area?

**************************************************

>
>Gravity is the alleged force through which one massive object attracts
>another. This necessarily means that there must be at least two massive
>objects that together, create gravity.
>

No, but thanks for playing. Try reading about General
Relativity.

>
> One massive object neither generates
>nor responds to gravity and that must mean there is no gravity for single
>massive objects. It's cosmic alchemy where nothing transmutes into
>something.
>

Nope. But please come back when you physics education has
progressed sufficiently far beyond the 10th century.

[Bill]

You confuse the gravity that people believe makes things fall with the
gravity that people believe holds the universe together. By your comments
here, it's obvious that your grasp of gravity begins and ends with Newton
and you don't want to think beyond that.

Bill

[israel socratus]

Gravity = mass + energy (GRT)

[jillery]

On Sat, 09 Jul 2022 16:22:55 -0500, Bill <fre...@gmail.com> wrote:

>You confuse the gravity that people believe makes things fall with the
>gravity that people believe holds the universe together.

People have known these are the same thing since Newton. What do you
think is the difference?