|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
"Androcles" wrote in message ...
"Jim Greenfield" wrote in message m... | "Androcles" wrote in message ... | "Jim Greenfield" wrote in message | om... | | Paul Lawler wrote in message .125.202... | | "Androcles" wrote in news:TmuVc.3953 | | : | | | | | | 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. The change in distance between me and moon would have very small effect, as it is only a tiny change in "r" in the gravity equation. It is the summing of the vectors which causes the (comparitively) large change in my weight. Dark of the moon, vector forces of gravity all generally pulling me down; moon above, vector componenets of moon's pull are cancelling (opposite direction to) the earth's. | | 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. I could never understand how it was generally accepted that the earth was EVER flat. As a teenager, standing atop a hill by the sea, with a straight edge, the curve was very obvious! I understand the Phoenecians or someone worked out a pretty good earth size that way thousands of years BC. How did that get lost? Religious persecution? | | 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 For Eric: "Every action has an equal and opposite reaction" Newton says so, and so do I! Classical gravity: drop an object down the side of a vertical building, and observe the curved path. Pass photons by the sun, and observe the curved path. Jim G c'=c+v |
#72
|
|||
|
|||
"Jim Greenfield" wrote in message om... | "Androcles" wrote in message ... | "Jim Greenfield" wrote in message | m... | | "Androcles" wrote in message | ... | | "Jim Greenfield" wrote in message | | om... | | | Paul Lawler wrote in message | .125.202... | | | "Androcles" wrote in | news:TmuVc.3953 | | | : | | | | | | | | | 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. | | The change in distance between me and moon would have very small | effect, as it is only a tiny change in "r" in the gravity equation. Tidal height of sea water is only a few feet. I'd call that a very small effect when compared to the Earth's diameter, and an enormous effect when it washes away my sandcastle. (shrug) | It | is the summing of the vectors which causes the (comparitively) large | change in my weight. Dark of the moon, vector forces of gravity all | generally pulling me down; moon above, vector componenets of moon's | pull are cancelling (opposite direction to) the earth's. | | | | | | | 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. | | I could never understand how it was generally accepted that the earth | was EVER flat. As a teenager, standing atop a hill by the sea, with a | straight edge, the curve was very obvious! I understand the | Phoenecians or someone worked out a pretty good earth size that way | thousands of years BC. How did that get lost? Religious persecution? Ask Columbus. I'm sure some of his deck hands were concerned about falling off the edge if they went far enough west. But seriously, The curvature of the Earth and its spherical nature was know to the ancient Greeks from seeing recognizable stars from the bottom of a well and the shadow of the Earth eclipsing the Moon, and from Navigators who used Polaris to find latitude. Longitude is far more difficult, you need an accurate time piece set to London (Greenwich) time to know how far East or West you are from London. GPS still uses that convention. | | | | | | 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 | | For Eric: "Every action has an equal and opposite reaction" | Newton says so, and so do I! | | Classical gravity: drop an object down the side of a vertical | building, and observe the curved path. Pass photons by the sun, and | observe the curved path. | | Jim G | c'=c+v |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 20:07:17 GMT, "Androcles"
wrote: "Dave" wrote in message ... | | 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. | | But aren't you using intuition to discard relativistic addition of | velocities in your c'=c+v (or is that c=c'+v?). | | | daveL You'd really need to ask Jim that. You have my response to him (above) confused with his statement x' = c+v. However, I will state that the vector addition of velocities, c+v, is used by Einstein in his equation ½[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] = tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v)) [snip] Why do you insist on keeping the difficult notation? Trim out the zeros and simplify the damn thing. You might learn something. |
#74
|
|||
|
|||
|
#75
|
|||
|
|||
"Jim Greenfield" schrieb im Newsbeitrag om... "Dave" wrote in message ... 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. But aren't you using intuition to discard relativistic addition of velocities in your c'=c+v (or is that c=c'+v?). Car is parked by road, another passes. At the instant both are alongside, each emits a photon (vaccum condition). I say each emits the photon at c from source, and therefore magic is required for each photon to travel "with" the other. This is NOT intuition- try it with throwing stones off the back of a ute! c DOESN"T = c+v (car). As for relativistic addition of velocities, this totally disregards conservation of energy/momentum, so I "intuitively" reject that nonesense to. Maybe here's a better analogy: Sound. If that depended on the source speed, the sound wall wouldn't exist. Lots of Greetings! Volker |
#76
|
|||
|
|||
"Volker Hetzer" wrote in message ... | | "Jim Greenfield" schrieb im Newsbeitrag om... | "Dave" wrote in message ... | | 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. | | But aren't you using intuition to discard relativistic addition of | velocities in your c'=c+v (or is that c=c'+v?). | | Car is parked by road, another passes. At the instant both are | alongside, each emits a photon (vaccum condition). I say each emits | the photon at c from source, and therefore magic is required for each | photon to travel "with" the other. This is NOT intuition- try it with | throwing stones off the back of a ute! c DOESN"T = c+v (car). | As for relativistic addition of velocities, this totally disregards | conservation of energy/momentum, so I "intuitively" reject that | nonesense to. | Maybe here's a better analogy: Sound. If that depended on the source | speed, the sound wall wouldn't exist. | | Lots of Greetings! | Volker Sound DOES depend on source speed. Try moving through air toward a sound source such as a fire siren. Relatively, the source is moving toward you. All speed is relative. See http://www.place.dawsoncollege.qc.ca...ph/Chap18B.htm Solution to Problem 18.51 Androcles Androcles |
#77
|
|||
|
|||
Maybe here's a better analogy: Sound. If that depended on the source
speed, the sound wall wouldn't exist. Lots of Greetings! Volker Sound DOES depend on source speed. Try moving through air toward a sound source such as a fire siren. Relatively, the source is moving toward you. All speed is relative. The speed of sound through air doesn't depend on the speed of the source or the detector, but the detected frequency depends on the speed of both the source and the detector. DaveL |
#78
|
|||
|
|||
"Androcles" schrieb im Newsbeitrag ... "Volker Hetzer" wrote in message ... | | "Jim Greenfield" schrieb im Newsbeitrag om... | "Dave" wrote in message ... | | 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. | | But aren't you using intuition to discard relativistic addition of | velocities in your c'=c+v (or is that c=c'+v?). | | Car is parked by road, another passes. At the instant both are | alongside, each emits a photon (vaccum condition). I say each emits | the photon at c from source, and therefore magic is required for each | photon to travel "with" the other. This is NOT intuition- try it with | throwing stones off the back of a ute! c DOESN"T = c+v (car). | As for relativistic addition of velocities, this totally disregards | conservation of energy/momentum, so I "intuitively" reject that | nonesense to. | Maybe here's a better analogy: Sound. If that depended on the source | speed, the sound wall wouldn't exist. | | Lots of Greetings! | Volker Sound DOES depend on source speed. So, how does a supersonic aircraft manage to outfly its own engine noise? Lots of Greetings! Volker |
#79
|
|||
|
|||
"Volker Hetzer" wrote in message ... | | "Androcles" schrieb im Newsbeitrag ... | | "Volker Hetzer" wrote in message | ... | | | | "Jim Greenfield" schrieb im Newsbeitrag | om... | | "Dave" wrote in message | ... | | | | 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. | | | | But aren't you using intuition to discard relativistic addition of | | velocities in your c'=c+v (or is that c=c'+v?). | | | | Car is parked by road, another passes. At the instant both are | | alongside, each emits a photon (vaccum condition). I say each emits | | the photon at c from source, and therefore magic is required for each | | photon to travel "with" the other. This is NOT intuition- try it with | | throwing stones off the back of a ute! c DOESN"T = c+v (car). | | As for relativistic addition of velocities, this totally disregards | | conservation of energy/momentum, so I "intuitively" reject that | | nonesense to. | | Maybe here's a better analogy: Sound. If that depended on the source | | speed, the sound wall wouldn't exist. | | | | Lots of Greetings! | | Volker | Sound DOES depend on source speed. You snipped the explanation. I'll return the courtesy. Androcles |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Beyond Linear Cosmology and Hypnotic Theology | Yoda | Misc | 0 | June 30th 04 07:33 PM |
Empirically Refuted Superluminal Velocities. | EL | Astronomy Misc | 22 | October 31st 03 05:07 PM |
Oceanographers Catch First Wave Of Gravity Mission's Success | Ron Baalke | Science | 13 | August 7th 03 06:24 AM |