Re: What's up with gravity wave detection?
From: Oriel36 (geraldkelleher_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 08/24/04
- Next message: Androcles: "Re: Negative Mass"
- Previous message: Gregory L. Hansen: "Re: Article: A Century of Einstein"
- In reply to: Androcles: "Re: What's up with gravity wave detection?"
- Next in thread: Dave: "Re: What's up with gravity wave detection?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 24 Aug 2004 07:38:18 -0700
"Androcles" <androc1es@nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message news:<tfEWc.5827$kI1.72132706@news-text.cableinet.net>...
> "Jim Greenfield" <greenfield_7@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3c4afb26.0408231650.c611a62@posting.google.com...
> | "Androcles" <androc1es@nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:<o%iWc.5276$7j7.64353402@news-text.cableinet.net>...
> | > "Jim Greenfield" <greenfield_7@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> | > news:3c4afb26.0408221636.3dbb2f04@posting.google.com...
> | > | Paul Lawler <stargazer@kilolaniDOT.net> wrote in message
> news:<Xns954C88C1BD247stargazerkilolaninet@207.217.125.202>...
> | > | > "Androcles" <androc1es@nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in
> news:TmuVc.3953
> | > | > $7C3.47477902@news-text.cableinet.net:
> | > | >
> | > |
> | > | Risking showing my naivitie, what is REALLY being discussed- a "one
> | > | of" change in gravitational field strength (pulse/wave), or a SERIES
> | > | of equal strength waves emanating from a static body?
> | > |
> | > | Jim G
> | > | c'=c+v
> | >
> | > Jim, this discussion is not about the existence or non-existence of
> gravity
> | > waves, but about their amplitude being great enough to be detectable.
> Simply
> | > spinning the Earth in the lunar gravity produces tides and when we
> include
> | > solar gravity we have neap and spring tides. If the lunar orbit were
> highly
> | > elliptical we'd have higher tides at perigee than at apogee. Thus we
> would
> | > have a detectable gravity 'wave'; they do exist, and can be detected.
> |
> | Yep. As I told Old Man, I weigh less with moon above than 12 hours
> | later. So the moon produces a gravity wave of frequency 1/24hour,
> | right?
> Relatively speaking, yes. Of course it is the spin of the Earth that
> actually changes your position and produces the wave, you are simply moving
> in a fixed field, the strength of which is a function of distance. 1/24hour
> may be misconstrued, though. 1 cycle every 24 hours is not the same as 1
> cycle in 2 minutes and 30 seconds, which is 1/24th of an hour. To be a
> little more precise, the moon orbits the Earth 13 times a year (but not
> exactly) and the Earth orbits the sun. 24 hours is the time from noon to noo
> n (sun at zenith) but a distant star moves about 4 minutes a day from
> midnight to midnight. Which star is overhead at midnight depends on your
> longitude. But rougly speaking, the gravity wave has a frequency of one
> cycle per day.
>
More precise !!!!,how for goodness sake did you lot manage to get
control of astronomy I will never know but the trail leads back to
Newton.
Poor Isaac,gave you a system that competes with the Tychonian
quasi-geocentric system based on Flamsteed.With concentration now
turning to Copernicus and the attempt by Brahe to return to a
quasi-geocentric view,it is only a matter of time before Newton's
alternative version rears its ugly head.
"PH?NOMENON IV.
That the fixed stars being at rest, the periodic times of the five
primary planets, and (whether of the sun about the earth, or) of the
earth about the sun, are in the sesquiplicate proportion of their mean
distances from the sun.
http://members.tripod.com/~gravitee/phaenomena.htm
This is how that statement works out graphically -
http://www.absolutebeginnersastronomy.com/sidereal.gif
Even if you ever get round to reading 'The Book Nobody Read' you are
unlikely to pick up on the idea of heliocentric motion taken from the
center of the Earth's orbit rather than the Sun's center,poor Isaac in
the best tradition of mathematicians fudged what he could not
understand.
Pity you can't read astronomical language and pity it took me a long
time to understand that,the ability is a gift rather than acquired.The
recent recovery of a more accurate history of investigative techniques
in geology, astronomy,clockmaking and multiple other avenue paves the
way for setting off the awful mistake Newton made in adopting his
particular nasty quasi-geocentric outlook.
You live your life living with Newton's personal revenge but defiance
until death is sure a lousy reward for anyone,aetherist,relativist and
bottom line.Simply stated,Newton got it wrong and in a very
fundamental way via Flamsteed.
http://hypertextbook.com/facts/1999/JennyChen.shtml
That is how close your entire discipline is to oblivion.
>
>
> | >
> | > LIGO, however, is about detecting a gravitational field from a supernova
> at
> | > a distance of a kiloparsec = 3260 light years, where some quantity of
> matter
> | > is
> | > completely converted to energy (E= mc^2) and the resultant gravity field
> is
> | > reduced. That would be a step pulse.
> | > Or it could be the field from a pulsar in orbit about a neighbour that
> is
> | > periodically approaching and receding from us, and that would be a
> | > sinusoidal wave. So the answer to your question is : both. However, the
> | > supernova (which may produce a pulsar as a remnant) is the greater.
> |
> | If a star explodes, the "center of gravity" of that star remains in
> | the same place afterward.
>
> Yes. There may be a shell of matter that leaves the star, but momentum is
> conserved. The same is true for a rocket. We see the rocket accelerate, but
> the exhaust is flying away in the opposite direction and the centre of mass
> of the combined exhaust and rocket only moves with its original velocity
> before the engine was fired. The combined momentum of the entire Universe is
> zero.
>
> | As I intuitively feel that the particles
> | which comprise EMR DO exert gravitational force themselves, therefore
> | no pulse/wave, as the star still "acts" the same after exploding.
> | However, as the EMR dissipates, opening up the angle from us (from a
> | point to an expanding cloud), there should be a gradual decline in
> | field strength towards/from that center of gravity. Undetectable
> | change until the outer ring of the burst is over a significant arc to
> | us = no wave (detectable = Ligo wont work for Sn
>
> Intuition is a dangerous tool. I don't recommend it. Better to prove a
> theorem mathematically and then see if intuition agrees. Thunder and
> lightning arrive at different times, and a child's intuition is that they
> are seperate events. An adult sees it differently. Until Copernicus,
> intuition told us the Earth is at the centre if the universe. After all, we
> see the sun cross the sky daily, it MUST be going around us. With greater
> knowledge we revise our view that we are turning toward and away from the
> sun. Never trust intuition, it is bane of science and the boon of religion.
>
>
> | >
> | > If you want to express the problem mathematically: let delta be the
> smallest
> | > amplitude detectable by the instrument used.
> | > Let a pulse (or wave) of amplitude A be emitted at 0 and the amplitude
> at r
> | > where the instrument is placed be A/r^2 = delta.
> | > Then the amplitude at A/(r+epsilon)^2 (epsilon > 0) is less than delta
> and
> | > is not detectable.
> | > LIGO has a real delta, so from that estimate the greatest imaginable A
> and
> | > calculate
> | > A/r^2 = delta
> | > r^2/A = 1/delta
> | > r = sqrt(A/delta)
> | >
> | > Androcles.
> |
> | Don't math me :-(
> |
> | Jim G
> | c'=c+v <-- don't math me. :-)
> Androcles
- Next message: Androcles: "Re: Negative Mass"
- Previous message: Gregory L. Hansen: "Re: Article: A Century of Einstein"
- In reply to: Androcles: "Re: What's up with gravity wave detection?"
- Next in thread: Dave: "Re: What's up with gravity wave detection?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
