A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Amateur Astronomy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

What are gravitational waves?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old February 1st 16, 03:10 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Sam Wormley[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,966
Default What are gravitational waves?

What are gravitational waves?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJ4U2VdKlW0


We discuss what gravitational waves actually are, what produces them,
and some of their properties. Part of a continuing series on the
NANOGrav project.

Let us know what you think of these videos by filling out our short
survey at http://tinyurl.com/astronomy-pulsar. Thank you!





--

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

  #2  
Old February 1st 16, 04:22 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
oriel36[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,478
Default What are gravitational waves?

On Monday, February 1, 2016 at 2:10:40 PM UTC, Sam Wormley wrote:
What are gravitational waves?


The 'theory of gravity' was originally a byword for the 'scientific method' which permits analogies to be used an an unrestricted cause applied to large scale motions and astronomical structures. It began as a 'Rule' but was quickly assigned a law of nature/motion/physics/gravity and so on by the followers of the originator -

"Rule III. The qualities of bodies, which admit neither [intensification] nor remission of degrees, and which are found to belong to all bodies within the reach of our experiments, are to be esteemed the universal qualities of all bodies whatsoever." Newton

I would say that the overwhelming majority of readers here imagine astronomy began with a magnification exercise and the creation of celestial sphere RA/Dec modeling in the late 17th century and ignore anything that came before it including the methods and insights of the original heliocentric astronomers. I would assume that most innocent readers would buckle under the voodoo created by the empirical theorists and the take-my-word-for-it propaganda which implies an unrestricted correlation between the fall of an apple and the motion of the planet around the Sun as Newton's overarching statement implies.

At no time at I am a disadvantage, I actually can put into visual form what Newton tried to do and why it is toxic in the extreme, not just for researchers but for the wider population and especially students.

These 'gravitational wave' guys don't intentionally go out to scam the wider population but it is merely a consequence of the peer review system which forces them to continue with a worthless narrative conjured out of thin air and so the high end welfare scam goes on and more importantly, displaces the natural faculties which make sense of motions beyond the Earth.

If you want an education on the difference between an empirical cult with its voodoo of 'gravitational waves' and genuine astronomy then all you have to do is ask or engage in a discussion rather than be spectators in a grotesque spectacle.

  #3  
Old February 1st 16, 07:45 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Chris.B[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,001
Default What are gravitational waves?

On Monday, 1 February 2016 15:10:40 UTC+1, Sam Wormley wrote:
What are gravitational waves?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJ4U2VdKlW0


We discuss what gravitational waves actually are, what produces them,
and some of their properties. Part of a continuing series on the
NANOGrav project.


We all know that an object usually spirals into the mass in the center of the rubber sheet.

But, what happens when you try to go UNDER the massive object?

What's going on down there?

Is it really full of 1461's spent arguments for rabid lunacy?

Or does his rubber sheet have special properties on relativistic visits to this gravitational "underworld" outside normal visiting hours?

  #4  
Old February 1st 16, 08:49 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
oriel36[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,478
Default What are gravitational waves?

These noiseboxes had their chance a few months ago to address me directly but I didn't expect nor did I get the response which is typical and no more can be said about it. Like fleas they show up again but such is life in an unmoderated forum.

The most frequent problem I see among empiricists ,at least those who profess an interest in astronomy, is how to put positions and motions in context of a moving Earth and its relationship to the Sun.One of the most beautiful descriptions of this issue is found in antiquity where these men considered what was 'above' and what represents 'below'. The upshot of these considerations was that the geocentric astronomers could work with observations as they appeared to them from a stationary Earth thereby dispensing with 'above/below' as anything other than a convenience of expression -

"And, finally, in what sense, and in reference to what thing is Earth said to be 'intermediate?' For the universe is infinite; now that which is infinite hath neither beginning nor limit, so it does not belong to it to possess a middle: for infinity is the deprivation of limits. But he who makes out Earth to be the middle not of the universe, but of the world, is ridiculous for his simplicity if he does not reflect that the 'world' itself is liable to the very same objections: for the universe hath not left a middle place for it also, but it is borne along without house or home in the boundless vacuum, towards nothing cognate to itself; perhaps it has found out for itself some other cause for remaining fixed, and so has stood still, but certainly not owing to the nature of its position. And it is allowable for one to conjecture alike with respect to Earth and with respect to the moon, that by some contrary soul and nature they are [actuated, the consequence of the diversity being] differences, the former remaining stationary here, the latter moving along. But apart from these considerations, see whether a certain important fact has not escaped their notice. For if whatsoever space, and whatever thing exists away from the center of Earth, is the 'above,' then no part of Earth is 'below,' but Earth herself and the things upon Earth; and, in a word, everybody standing around or investing the center, become the 'above;' whilst 'below' is one sole thing, that incorporeal point, which has the duty of counterbalancing the whole constitution of the world; if, indeed, the 'below' is by its nature opposed to the 'above.' And this is not the only absurdity in the argument, but it also does away with the cause through which all ponderous bodies gravitate in this direction, and tend downwards: for there is no mark below towards which they move: for the incorporeal point is not likely (nor do they pretend it is) to exert so much force as to draw down all objects to itself, and keep them together around itself. But yet, it is proved unreasonable, and repugnant to facts, to suppose the 'above' of the world to be a whole, but the 'below' an incorporeal and indefinite limit: whereas that course is consistent with reason, to say, as we do, that the space is large and possessed of width, and is defined by the 'above' and the 'below' of locality." Plutarch

http://thriceholy.net/Texts/Moon.html


In a practical sense one of the participants here had a problem with Venus as it moves from an evening planet to a morning planet or rather moves from the left of the Sun to the right of the central Sun in its annual circuit -

http://www.popastro.com/images/plane...ary%202012.jpg


I see this guy mock me on the value of 1461 rotations to 4 annual circuits while his cult tries to force through 1465 rotations for the same period and 4 orbital circumferences. Of course he was given a chance to explain his case but he would rather entertain himself with histrionics and imagine others find it funny .

This is for people who are serious about electromagnetic signatures in both solar system and galactic orbital motion and it isn't going to be done with rubber sheets by people in celestial sphere ideologies.
  #5  
Old February 1st 16, 09:08 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Quadibloc
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,018
Default What are gravitational waves?

On Monday, February 1, 2016 at 8:22:54 AM UTC-7, oriel36 wrote:

These 'gravitational wave' guys don't intentionally go out to scam the wider population


The claim that there is such a thing as a "gravitational wave" can be tested by
observation.

Thus, for example, the fact that the period of pulsars changes slowly means
that two orbiting masses, since as they occupy different areas in space, they
pull in different directions, are actually sending out energy in the form of
gravitational waves - and thus losing energy. The same way that a radio
transmitting tower uses up energy to send out electromagnetic waves.

John Savard
  #6  
Old February 1st 16, 09:36 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
oriel36[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,478
Default What are gravitational waves?

On Monday, February 1, 2016 at 8:09:03 PM UTC, Quadibloc

Remind me again what causes the Sun to appear followed by the stars each 24 hour day. An expert in time,space and motion would conclude that the planet turns once each 24 hours and its effects will be experienced by all sane people as one rotation.

That is the minimum standard I set for a discussion with anyone these days never mind the creeps who mock me on the 1461st rotation which closes out 4 orbital circuits at the end of this month.

I am not concerned with your empirical illness, I am here to demonstrate the power of visual imaging in creating enjoyable narratives for students and interest adults.
  #7  
Old February 1st 16, 10:29 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Chris L Peterson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,007
Default What are gravitational waves?

On Mon, 1 Feb 2016 12:08:59 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
wrote:

The claim that there is such a thing as a "gravitational wave" can be tested by
observation.

Thus, for example, the fact that the period of pulsars changes slowly means
that two orbiting masses, since as they occupy different areas in space, they
pull in different directions, are actually sending out energy in the form of
gravitational waves - and thus losing energy.


While that is very strong evidence for gravitational radiation, it is,
of course, only evidence. Most physicists believe that we are only a
year or two away from more direct observations of gravitational waves
by LIGO type instruments. That too, will be evidence, not proof,
meaning those who choose to deny reality will continue to deny (proof,
of course, being an impossible standard).
  #8  
Old February 1st 16, 11:18 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
oriel36[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,478
Default What are gravitational waves?

On Monday, February 1, 2016 at 9:29:37 PM UTC, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Mon, 1 Feb 2016 12:08:59 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
wrote:

The claim that there is such a thing as a "gravitational wave" can be tested by
observation.

Thus, for example, the fact that the period of pulsars changes slowly means
that two orbiting masses, since as they occupy different areas in space, they
pull in different directions, are actually sending out energy in the form of
gravitational waves - and thus losing energy.


While that is very strong evidence for gravitational radiation, it is,
of course, only evidence. Most physicists believe that we are only a
year or two away from more direct observations of gravitational waves
by LIGO type instruments. That too, will be evidence, not proof,
meaning those who choose to deny reality will continue to deny (proof,
of course, being an impossible standard).


Not so.

I often use the proof of the Earth's orbital motion around the Sun along with the orbital motion of the other planets.

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap011220.html

The proof ,at least for the external planets, is that the faster moving Earth causes the slower moving outer planets to fall behind in view as our planets overtakes them.

The proof offered by physicists (mathematicians) for the same observation is no proof at all -

"For to the earth planetary motions appear sometimes direct, sometimes
stationary, nay, and sometimes retrograde. But from the sun they are
always seen direct,..." Newton

For all the chatter about 'gravitation', none of you understand your own system and how it was put together.Impostors can always get away with the take-my-word-for-it scam but that doesn't work in this forum.

You have a dependency going on with the other guy so you can safely retreat to the mediocrity of social/political opinions.
  #9  
Old February 2nd 16, 12:13 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Chris L Peterson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,007
Default What are gravitational waves?

On Mon, 1 Feb 2016 14:18:42 -0800 (PST), oriel36
wrote:

Not so.

I often use the proof of the Earth's orbital motion around the Sun along with the orbital motion of the other planets.


There is no proof that the Earth orbits the Sun, only very strong
evidence. Some new physical theory could come along that upsets our
entire understanding of the Solar System. Not likely, of course, but
not impossible.
  #10  
Old February 2nd 16, 12:29 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
oriel36[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,478
Default What are gravitational waves?

On Monday, February 1, 2016 at 11:13:58 PM UTC, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Mon, 1 Feb 2016 14:18:42 -0800 (PST), oriel36
wrote:

Not so.

I often use the proof of the Earth's orbital motion around the Sun along with the orbital motion of the other planets.


There is no proof that the Earth orbits the Sun, only very strong
evidence.


You are going around a traffic roundabout in an inner lane and overtaking slower moving cars in an outer lane and watch as they temporarily fall behind in view. It is a judgement call, one of thousands we make every single day without fail,without need for proof,without need for evidence - it is simply an intrinsic part of our intelligence as with all other animals who use judgments of motions to survive.

What sets us apart as humans is the ability to apply the observations to long term observations, in this case the Earth overtaking the slower moving Jupiter and the even slower moving Saturn and watch as they fall temporarily behind in view -

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap011220.html


You are unable to turn what is a purely judgmental affirmation of the motion of all the planets around the Sun using the perspectives seen from a moving Earth nor can you understand the basis of 'gravitation' as Sir Isaac proposed it to his followers -

"For to the earth planetary motions appear sometimes direct, sometimes
stationary, nay, and sometimes retrograde. But from the sun they are
always seen direct,..." Newton


Some new physical theory could come along that upsets our
entire understanding of the Solar System. Not likely, of course, but
not impossible.



When you give yourselves choices you don't have then anything and everything is possible. This is what happens when you follow an doctrine where the limitations between analogies and large scale motions and structures are removed where you see the cause of the motion of the Earth around the Sun using a falling apple or visa versa.


"Rule III. The qualities of bodies, which admit neither [intensification] nor remission of degrees, and which are found to belong to all bodies within the reach of our experiments, are to be esteemed the universal qualities of all bodies whatsoever." Newton

Not a law of motion nor a universal theory of gravitation but a stupid rule with a nasty scheme behind it that has disrupted astronomy for centuries.







 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
New experiments set to detect gravitational waves! Double-A[_3_] Misc 4 May 4th 13 05:54 AM
Detection of gravitational waves Koobee Wublee Astronomy Misc 2 May 23rd 12 12:30 PM
Gravitational Waves Recorded with GRB David Thomson Astronomy Misc 14 June 5th 08 03:25 PM
Gravitational Waves jonathan Policy 6 November 9th 05 06:46 AM
Gravitational waves discovered? Luigi Caselli Misc 2 November 2nd 04 11:32 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:49 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.