Re: What's up with gravity wave detection?

From: Androcles (androc1es_at_nospamblueyonder.co.uk)
Date: 09/04/04 

Date: Sat, 04 Sep 2004 01:42:38 GMT

"Jim Greenfield" <greenfield_7@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3c4afb26.0409031708.434e380a@posting.google.com...
| vonroach <hadrainc@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:<8qcfj0p9k5k6onqgfa7i3ikeqdfjd8u6cp@4ax.com>...
| > On Thu, 02 Sep 2004 08:17:08 GMT, "Androcles"
| > <androc1es@nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
| >
| > >
| > >"Jim Greenfield" <greenfield_7@hotmail.com> wrote in message
| > >news:3c4afb26.0409011302.2727a6b7@posting.google.com...
| > >| "Androcles" <androc1es@nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
| > news:<fVkZc.829$GY5.9693391@news-text.cableinet.net>...
| > >| > "RP" <no_mail_no_spam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
| > >| > news:2plqglFmmtlkU1@uni-berlin.de...
| > >| > |
| > >| > |
| > >| > | Jim Greenfield wrote:
| > >| > |
| > >| > | > Just while you lot take a deep breath, what is actually being
| > sought?.
| > >| > | > Not just a "one of", like a tsunami on the ocean, surely. A
pulse
| > like
| > >| > | > that might be easily detectible when two masses pass each
other, and
| > >| > | > the vectors add. A search for a constant vibration (light vs
one
| > >| > | > photon) is another matter. Isn't that what is being looked for-
| > >| > | > gravity wave(s) akin to light wave(s)?
| > >| > | >
| > >| > | > Jim G
| > >| > | > c'=c+v
| > >| > |
| > >| > | The only oscillation that can occur requires the reciprocal
| > oscillation
| > >| > | of another mass. The c.g. of that system doesn't oscillate. Any
waves
| > >| > | emitted from this oscillation will affect surrounding masses to
such
| > an
| > >| > | extent that they will oscillate in response. The net sum result,
i.e.
| > by
| > >| > | the time all of these primary and secondary waves get to us is a
null
| > >| > | result.
| > >| > | If we choose an event a bit more local, then we can indeed detect
the
| > >| > | effect (Simply jump up and down and you become the detector) but
now
| > you
| > >| > | are faced with the problem of proving that it was a wave, or IOW,
the
| > >| > | real question is, doesn't propagate at a finite speed. Gravity
wave
| > >| > | detection is this synonymous with detection of a delay in the
| > >| > | gravitational interaction.
| > >| > |
| > >| > | BTW, concerning your tag:
| > >| > |
| > >| > | x' = x - vt
| > >| >
| > >| > How come? Would that be because Einstein said
| > >| > IF we place x' = x-vt...?
| > >| >
| > >| >
| > >| >
| > >| >
| > >| > | c' = x'/t
| > >| > | c' = (x - vt)/t
| > >| > | c' = x/t - v
| > >| > | and so,
| > >| > |
| > >| > | c' = c - v
| > >| > |
| > >| > | If the beam is moving to the right at c wrt K, and K' is moving
to the
| > >| > | right wrt K (making v and c both positive values), then the speed
of
| > the
| > >| > | beam wrt K' will be less than c, right?
| > >| >
| > >| > Ah, so there IS an "IF". :-)
| > >|
| > >| Yep! And if my aunty had balls, she'd be my uncle!
| > >| >
| > >| > x' = x-vt,
| > >| > xi = x' * gamma. LOL.
| > >| >
| > >| > Androcles
| > >| >
| > >| >
| > >| > | So naturally c' = c - v
| > >| > |
| > >| > | Don't sweat it, an inability to add vectors has sustained special
| > >| > | relativity for 99 years. Having discovered that the actually
resulted
| > >| > | from the same, I'm even more disgusted with those idiots that I
was.
| > >|
| > >| Not forgetting the licenses DhR's have awarded themselves, such as
| > >| using "less than zero" distance as a reality, and the use of circular
| > >| logic- "velocity slows time; therefore the train shrinks. Velocity
| > >| shrinks the train; therefore time is slowed!" lol
| > >| > |
| > >| > | Richard Perry
| > >| > |
| > >|
| > >| It seems now I have to add to my infinite time, volume and distance
| > >| collection, the proposition of INSTANT action at a distance. (already
| > >| had the latter)
| > >| Little cuties, these gravitons. I see 'em now, heading out to the
| > >| moon, getting there, and saying "come home with us". Meanwhile, their
| > >| moon cousins are doing the same! (lol) Smart little peckers, to!
| > >| They even know which way the target is before leaving, and remember
| > >| clearly where they came from!
| > >|
| > >| Jim G
| > >| c'=c+v
| > >
| > >It is said that fact is stranger than fiction, and if so this fact
| > >exemplifies it.
| > >The working of the human mind produces far stranger fiction than any
fact.
| > >Whatever phenomenon we seek the answer to, we simply have to have an
| > >answer. Whether it be right or wrong, it has to be the answer. Few will
| > >say "I don't know" and leave it there. It embarrasses them, makes them
| > >fell incompetent. They say the first thing that pops into their head,
and
| > >from that moment on it is the answer.
| > >"Well... I think..." and boom! There it is. It becomes fact in their
mind.
| > >There is no going back, either. They'll reinforce the idea, persuade
others
| > >to agree or call others 'idiot' for not seeing as clearly as they do.
The
| > >embarrassment of being wrong, the stigma one carries forevermore
| > >for having said something off the wall is a huge emotional force that
| > >drives many, and the pride in having others agree with you, showering
| > >accolades on your brilliance are only emotions.
| > >They have nothing to do with physics.
| > >They say more about the individual than they do about the topic of
| > > discussion. You can see it in almost every post that appears here.
| > >I was conversing with "Ghost in the Machine". Now, he's not dumb
| > >as so many are, and seems to be quite satisfied that there is something
| > >radically wrong with relativity. Yet he expects me to solve all the
| > >problems in Nature as if I knew all the answers. I don't. I never
claimed
| > >to. All I can say is that whatever Einstein said, it was wrong and I
can
| > >prove it. That's a far cry from having the solution to life, the
universe
| > >and everything.
| > >The graviton was thought up after the photon. Someone (I forget who)
| > >was pondering action at a distance, light crosses the void, light comes
| > >as photons, so gravitons are born. Along come all the sheep, pick up
| > >the word, it sounds good in their sight and suddenly this is how the
| > >universe works.
| > >It doesn't matter if it is the right answer, if it's the only answer
you
| > >have
| > >then this must be it. Then the theory builds around it and before you
can
| > > say "Albert Einstein", this is how the universe works.
| > >It makes me shudder.
| > >Androcles.
| > >
| > Einstein warned: "Most mistakes in philosophy and logic occur because
| > the human mind is apt to take the symbol for reality"
|
| So the idiot, seeing that the stove was red hot, went ahead and put
| his hand on it anyway!.........leading to the premise of shrinkage,
| time warp etc
|
| (-) is a SYMBOL. Yet Einstein (et al) STILL went ahead and considered
| "less than zeros" as "REALITY"
|
| Jim G
| c'=c+v

Here's another. 0.
It is a very useful symbol for show how far a quantity is displaced from
the decimal point, but it represents nothing and has all the properties of
nothing, which are none at all. You can multiply by it, and say there are
0*6 apples in the barrel, just as there are 0*Jims in the barrel either. You
can divide by it and get any quantity you like, but you can add it or
subtract it.
It is the empty set, it is vacuum. It cannot be, for it is nothing. It is an
idea, and an idea is like unto a computer program. It is not real, in the
sense that we can reach out and touch it, it has no substance. It is the
symbol.
Androcles

| > Tell me Andy, does it seem strange to you that all matter and energy
| > has been described as particular (quantum theory). And that the mind's
| > contribution of a spacetime in which this process lives is a continum
| > (unless you agree to Planck time, planck length, etc?)

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Whats up with gravity wave detection?
    ... |>>The working of the human mind produces far stranger fiction than any ... All I can say is that whatever Einstein said, ...
    (sci.astro)
  • Re: Whats up with gravity wave detection?
    ... |>>The working of the human mind produces far stranger fiction than any ... All I can say is that whatever Einstein said, ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Relativity for dummies
    ... Einstein didn't say lots of new things. ... > Back to the energy thing. ... > electrodynamic waves to drag it on rather than gravity. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Relativity for dummies
    ... Einstein tried its best to point out relativity of time. ... Back to the energy thing. ... electrodynamic waves to drag it on rather than gravity. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)