Re: Will the LIGO Experiment Work?
From: Androcles (androc1es_at_nospamblueyonder.co.uk)
Date: 07/28/04
- Next message: Harry: "Re: SR wrong - no."
- Previous message: Marcel Luttgens: "Re: Is special relativity falsifiable?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2004 16:27:29 GMT
"Cigamtp" <cigamtp@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040728091802.04516.00000568@mb-m27.aol.com...
| Will the LIGO Experiment Work?
|
The greatest possible gravity wave would occur if its source disappeared
entirely. We can imagine (for the purpose of discussion) that a star
converted all its mass to energy in one cataclysmic explosion, leaving no
mass (and hence no gravity) and a huge outpouring of radiation. To detect
the negative going gravity pulse, we would first need to detect the effect
of the pre-existing gravity prior to the cataclysm. The nearest star is 3.9
light years away, and its gravitational effect upon us has not been
detected. Therefore almost zero going to zero isn't going to be detected
either.
The answer is no.
Androcles
| An ambitious experiment to detect gravitational waves from distant
| astronomical sources is currently in preparation (Laser Interferometric
| Gravitational Observatory - LIGO). A typical source for such waves would
be two
| stars circling each other in close proximity. It is proposed to detect
these
| waves by means of a two axis laser array to measure the relativistic
effects of
| the waves as they pass by. It is postulated that these waves will cause
the
| distance between the ends of the array, as sensed by Laser inteferometry,
to be
| moved by the "distortion of space" as they pass the Earth. It is expected
that
| this movement will be detectible by an interference pattern observable in
Laser
| signals sent between the ends of the arrays. Calculations have shown that
the
| gravitational wave produced by a massive star in close orbit about another
| should contain enough energy to be readily detectible by this method. What
does
| not seem to be mentioned is the fact that LIGO is only capable of
detecting
| longitudinal waves. In addition in none of these reports does mention seem
to
| have been made of the fact that such waves must always be generated as
multiple
| waves which cancel completely for longitudinal waves and cancel in the far
| field for transverse waves. Considering the distances involved and the
size of
| the LIGO array, all such observations will be made as distant far field
| observations.
|
| The generation of multiple waves (e.g.- two for a binary system)
results
| from the fact that, as is the case with a single gravitational object, the
| center of gravity of a gravitationally coupled multiple object must remain
| stationary as its component parts move with respect to each other. As a
result,
| the gravitational wave (as seen at an "infinite distance") from one of the
| objects in a binary system will be equal in amplitude and opposite in
phase to
| the gravitational wave from the other. The net gravitational radiation
from the
| pair will consist of both longitudinal and transverse waves which are
equal in
| amplitude. The longitudinal waves will be opposite in phase and shoud
therefore
| cancel completely. The transverse waves will have a very small phase angle
| between them equal to the radius of the orbit(so) involved divided by the
| distance to the source.
|
| The transverse waves are only observable if the two objects can be
| resolved as separate objects (near field radiation). If they cannot be so
| resolved (far field radiation) by the gravitational wave detector, they
will be
| impossible to detect because the detector will experience only the static
field
| from their common center of gravity. The cyclical field which for which
| detection was hoped for will cancel. A further complication in the
detection of
| the transverse wave is the fact that they will not produce a 'stretching"
of
| the local horizontal, they will produce a "tilting" of the local vertical.
The
| LIGO array should not capable of detecting the effect even if it has
sufficinet
| amplitude.
|
| The longitudinal waves emanating from the center of gravity of the
| emitting system always produce far field radiation which cancels
completely. An
| additional complication results from the fact that any residual component
of
| the gravitational radiation is attenuated not only by the expected inverse
| square law, it suffers an additional attenuation in proportion to the cube
of
| distance rather than the square of distance do the transverse waves. It
would
| seem reasonable to assert that there are no longitudinal waves for LIGO to
| detect.
|
| Gravitational waves certainly do exist, we live on a world with an
| enormous gravity wave detector, the oceans. The tides in the ocean are
produced
| by the Moon's gravitational field. The time of high tide advances about an
hour
| a day. This advancement can be considered to be the output of a gravity
wave
| detector, but, that gravity wave would be undetectable at interplanetary
| distances because the gravitational waves from the Earth and the Moon
would
| cancel each other virtually completely! The writer has received arguments
that
| the fact that binary stellar systems are observed to lose energy over time
due
| to radiation of gravitational energy to the Universe shows that the
limitation
| described does not occur and that gravitational waves will therefore be
| detectible. Such an argument is faulty. The radiating objects are embedded
in
| the Universe and, as a result, all of the radiated gravitational energy is
| absorbed as "near field" radiation. It is only the shrimpy detectors that
man
| is capable of building which will have difficulty in detecting transverse
| gravitational waves. (In addition to the expected attenuation in wave
strength
| imposed by the inverse square law, the energy received by the far field
| detector represented by the LIGO array will be reduced in proportional to
the
| square of the ratio of the orbital radius of the sources divided by the
| distance to the sourced. Rotsa Ruck Fellows!
|
| The source material for this posting may be found in "Gravity"
(1987),
| "The Einstein Hoax" (1997), and "Corrections to Residual Errors in Special
| Relativity (1999) located at
http://www.members.aol.com/einsteinhoax/site.htm.
| EVERYTHING WHICH WE ACCEPT AS TRUE MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH EVERYTHING ELSE
WE
| HAVE ACCEPTED AS TRUE, IT MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH ALL OBSERVATIONS, AND IT
MUST
| BE MATHEMATICALLY VIABLE. PRESENT TEACHINGS DO NOT ALWAYS MEET THIS
| REQUIREMENT. THE WORLD IS ENTITLED TO A HIGHER STANDARD OF WORKMANSHIP
FROM
| THOSE IT HAS GRANTED WORLD CLASS STATUS.
|
| All Newsposts by this Website are available at
| http://www.members.aol.com/postinglog/newspostings.com
|
| Please make any response via E-mail as Newsgroups are not monitored
on a
| regular basis. Objective responses will be treated with the same courtesy
as
| they are presented. To prevent the wastage of time on both of our parts,
please
| do not raise objections that are not related to material that you have
read at
| the Website. This posting is merely a summary.
|
| E-mail:- einsteinhoax@aol.com
|
| The material at the Website has been posted continuously for over 5
years.
| In that time THERE HAVE BEEN NO OBJECTIVE REBUTTALS OF ANY OF THE MATERIAL
| PRESENTED. There have only been hand waving arguments by individuals who
have
| mindlessly accepted the prevailing wisdom without questioning it. If
anyone
| provides a significant rebuttal that cannot be objectively answered, the
| material at the Website will be withdrawn.
|
- Next message: Harry: "Re: SR wrong - no."
- Previous message: Marcel Luttgens: "Re: Is special relativity falsifiable?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
