Re: Update on LIGO.

On Jan 18, 8:36 am, Eric Gisse <jowr...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jan 18, 7:10 am, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:



Hi Cliff.

On Jan 18, 3:09 am, cliff wright <c.c.wri...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Benj wrote:
On Jan 18, 12:10 am, Eric Gisse <jowr...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Why don't you be more clever and explain why you think gravitational
waves don't exist despite the repeated indirect observations of their
emission and the lack of even one observational disproof of GR?

Is this an open call?

Well since it is clear that *I* am awl that matters now and the only
one posting here smarter than Einstein, I will explain it awl to you!

"Gravity waves" are such a hoax because gravity is in serious need of
"debunking"! The mistake is that everybody thinks that gravity is an
attraction between masses. Just one more stupidity of the physicists!
Put it in the same dustbin as "big bang", "displacement current",
"action at a distance" and all the rest of the "phlogiston theories".
Gravity is a PUSH shoving objects together. Take all that Einsteinian
mathematics about "4-space warps" and all the rest and dump it in the
SAME dustbin! *I* am awl that matters now!

Gravity is a push created when pre-existing waves upon the surface of
the 4D+ Hypersphere which is the universe are shielded by mass. The
result (as theorized by Feynman and Wheeler) is the creation of a
"PUSH" that shoves the objects toward each other due to the "shadow"
each creates upon the other. So the bottom line is you can "wiggle"
masses all you like but the most you can do is "wiggle" the shadows
they cast. You will NOT be sending out any kind of mass-generated
"gravity waves"! Sheesh. Just think about these things for a while,
OK? *I* am AWL that matters
now!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

PS. for more information go ask Uncle Al.

God's Teeth!
No wonder I sometimes just want to give up on science these days!
I ask a few questions about an ongoing experiment and get accused-
1- of knowing nothing about science.
2- Of asking a politically motivated question and having some particular
position regarding the Middle East.
3- Of being "Anti Science".

Now, and yes this is directed to Eric in the first instance, but touches
on other postings as well.
Thanks for the information about the slow analysis of the data from LIGO
runs. Is this due to lack of computing power or actual problems with the
analysis?
As to costs. In a world where perfectly good existing Astronomical
equipment is being mothballed or disposed of beacause of lack of funds,
to quote only one example, a billion $US can make alot of difference.

As to understanding Physics. As yet we have NO reasonable theory of
gravitation which combines Relativity and Quantum mechanics. However if
you have one perhaps the Nobel commitee might be interested.
I have been involved in Physics in many fields for over 50 years
including Astronomy both radio and optical, Acoustics, Aerodynamics
, solid state Physics and semiconductors.

Ok so we have seen some apparent energy changes in the orbits of high
density objects around each other. But consider, we do not actually have
any real idea what we are observing in terms of the nature and
especially the density of the objects involved. Certainly we have
theories but with so little real data any such theory is on shaky ground.

I gather that Hulse and Taylor received a Nobel prize for work on
Gravitational radiation. I haven't had a chance to check up on this yet
but certainly will within a few days. That may or may not be relevant I
still remember the Nobel prize for the discovery of Pulsars going to an
academic who actually discouraged the research assistant, who made the
real discovery. So the Nobel prize is not always a great criterion.

Next question. In what way have the models of "Gravitational Waves" been
modified from LIGO's non results?
Now Please don't reply that I have to be familiar with an arcane branch
of Tensor calculus to know! That is not an answer at all.
Any theory must have some kind of model behind it. Indeed a touchstone
of a great Physicist like Richard Feynman is that he could explain a
model of his ideas that an interested person could understand.
This without using a single 4 letter word!

Sure things have indeed progressed since Weber's cylinders. Sesitivity
to the changes being sought has enormously increased and instrumentation
and analysis are many orders of magnitude better.
But STILL no signals.

As another poster has pointed out even if the GW signals are somewhat
different in frequency then we have serious problems.
All the equipment used so far is dependent on resonance effects to a
great degree.
It has been suggested that we reduce the bandwidth to get a better S/N
ratio. Fine but then our detection process gets less and less likely too.

I have made a study of early Radio and until about 1905 it was often the
case that the reason that an installation didn't work was simply that
they were on different frequencies and until then there was no way of
measuring them.

We are obviously in at least as difficult a position here as Marconi was
about 1902. At least he had Maxwell and Hertz to fall back on and could
generate a signal in his laboratory whenever he needed to.

Hope we get more light and less heat if this discussion continues.
Regards Cliff Wright

What you have posted is darn fair.
I've studied the problem in detail for example here,http://physics.trak4.com/GR_Charge_Couple.pdf
But you don't need to read it.
Using that solution, the binary pulsar emits / looses
it's orbital energy via EMR, instead of g-waves.

Really, Ken. What makes you think anything you write is relevant to
GR?

My work is in the GPoR system, I'm more an Orthodox
GRist than a regular GRist, as those who know me know.
Gisse, you FAILED TO ANSWER my spin/ANTI spin
question. Grade"E" for Eric.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Relativity needs correction the facts part 1
    ... SR was physics - good physics i think. ... Einstein got his nobel price for the photoelectric effect. ... with gravity. ... It introduces the picture ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Update on LIGO.
    ... Gravity is a PUSH shoving objects together. ... I have been involved in Physics in many fields for over 50 years ... A foot note to my last posting on this subject. ... exceed Chandreskar's limit of 1.4 solar masses by a large margin. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Update on LIGO.
    ... one posting here smarter than Einstein, I will explain it awl to you! ... Gravity is a PUSH shoving objects together. ... I have been involved in Physics in many fields for over 50 years ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Is this serious?
    ... Neither Newton thought that hia gravity model .. ... people interpeted this model as mutual attraction at a distance ... that contains the word "is" is not physics, ... demonstrate how Einstein defined gravity both physically and mathematically. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Is this serious?
    ... Pmb wrote: ... Neither Newton thought that hia gravity model .. ... that contains the word "is" is not physics, ... demonstrate how Einstein defined gravity both physically and mathematically. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
Quantcast