Re: Update on LIGO.

On Jan 19, 9:32 pm, cliff wright <c.c.wri...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Eric Gisse wrote:
On Jan 19, 12:08 pm, cliff wright <c.c.wri...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Eric Gisse wrote:

On Jan 19, 1:53 am, cliff wright <c.c.wri...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

cliff wright 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

A foot note to my last posting on this subject. Just today on my regular
"Sky and Telescope" update we have apair of apparent Neutron stars which
exceed Chandreskar's limit of 1.4 solar masses by a large margin. So now
what are we looking at?

How large a margin? The exact limit is fungible - if it is much larger
than 2 solar masses, I'd start wondering wtf is going on.

We also have news that Canada's David Dunlop observatory is under threat
of closure due to lack of funds. That is what I meant
CCW.

Well Eric the preliminary figures are 1.9 and 2.7 solar masses
respectively, so we are well over 2.0 at least in one case.

How "preliminary" is preliminary?

This could be interesting, or it could be yet another case of "oops,
reported too early".

Indeed one does have to wonder what is going on.
IMO this shows that the whole theory of stellar mass black holes needs
revising. Has anyone done any work on a body composed of quarks, like a
single massive neutron or proton I wonder?

Yea, because of one interesting result the whole theory has to be
thrown in the toilet even if the theory that is broken is loosely
related to the existence of black holes.

Taken at face value, all this says is that the expected composition of
a neutron star may be wrong. Or this might be a more exotic star that
has internal pressures capable of holding off gravity's loving
embrace.

What this does not say is that black holes don't exist, or that the
theory of black holes is wrong.

However, General Relativity places /extremely stringent/ bounds on how
much mass can be packed in a given volume before it undergoes
gravitational collapse. The bounds are based on some rather weak
assumptions, too. If you want to see assault on black holes, get a
reading on the radius of the object and show that there is more mass
density than the region should be able to support.

I was interested in the debate on GRB's, the last seminar I went to on
these about 4 years ago the idea of symetrical radiation from the polar
regions of hyper dense objects held sway. Since this would be balanced
how would this affect the "gravitational radiation" signal such an
object might emit under catastrophic conditions?

No idea, but there are plenty of papers on the subject.

As to the sky quality at David Dunlap observatory. Well many
observatories have that problem these days. Why could the instruments
not be relocated to a better site? Observatory design is much better
these days and relatively cheaper too.
A bit of sensible lighting control might help also.
Cliff Wright.

Just looked up the article Eric. They have apparently 18 years worth of
data at Arecibo on the first pair in a globular cluster in Serpens
(M5) and have just a few months of data on another pair, of similar
masses. They have a lot of quite advanced measurements on the first pair
as a result of having such along data collection period and this it
seems backs up the mass estimates. The main reseacher is Paulo Freire.
Have a look atwww.skyandtelescope.com/community/skyblog/newsblog/13876772.html
Cliff Wright.

Thanks for the article.

Looks like they found an edge case. I wonder what makes this one so
special...
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Update on LIGO.
    ... attraction between masses. ... Gravity is a PUSH shoving objects together. ... IMO this shows that the whole theory of stellar mass black holes needs ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Update on LIGO.
    ... Gravity is a PUSH shoving objects together. ... exceed Chandreskar's limit of 1.4 solar masses by a large margin. ... IMO this shows that the whole theory of stellar mass black holes needs ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: sad cutty sark burnt
    ... The Cutty Sark was a tea clipper but it was used to ... that there is slavery in the UK today. ... But nothing stating that the Cutty Sark was a slave ship. ... But then we're back at people not knowing anything about history again... ...
    (uk.politics.misc)
  • Re: Find balance point?
    ... balance point (the centre of gravity) ... masses, and mark it. ... Create an object to use as a mass. ... A new section appeared with an entry called ...
    (microsoft.public.visio.general)
  • Re: Could Dark Matter be here on earth?
    ... If so it would be detectable surely - it has mass. ... the matter in the Universe must have been compressed to the size ... the necessary gravity "needed" to stop the run-away expansion. ... Newton used the calculated masses of the Earth/ ...
    (sci.physics)