|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Detection of gravitational waves
On May 20, 7:08 pm, Tom Roberts wrote:
On 5/19/12 5/19/12 8:25 AM, hippolyte Lapoyat wrote: The collapse of a star is supposed to create gravitational waves. Not really. The primary source of gravitational waves that the various detectors are seeking is the inspiral of a massive object into another. That is, as two massive objects orbit each other, they emit gravitational radiation, which represents a loss of energy in the local system (loosely defined), and they approach each other, with decreasing orbital period, until they collide. Of one of the objects is a black hole, there is no collision, and the other object is simply engulfed. Really, Tom. The mathematics of gravitational radiation can be interpreted in many different ways. Of course, one is the quadruple moment conjecture. shrug When a star collapses, the angular momentum is conserved under Newtonian laws of physics. When a binary system merging together into a single star, the angular momentum ought to be conserved as well. Of course, the angular momentum should not be taken as conserved at any circumstances, but are you telling us, two quantities of angular momentums can be different such that one would produce gravitational radiation and another one would not? shrug The collapse of a star is approximately spherically symmetric if it is not spinning, or approximately cylindrically symmetric if it is spinning. Sources with such symmetry emit no gravitational radiation in GR. You know what. Mathematically, there is no difference between a collapsing star and a merging binary system. So, so please explain exactly how one circumstance in angular momentum can be conserved while one would not. shrug The strong acceleration of a mass would produce the same kind of waves. Can we compare the intensity of the waves produced by a rocket (space shuttle or Ariane) with the waves coming from the sky? Man-made phenomena like that are VASTLY smaller than natural astronomical processes, by MANY orders of magnitude. The gravitational waves from any human-induced process are completely undetectable. This statement is assumed that gravitational waves have been detected somewhat. Where? shrug Oh, building more energetic accelerators and longer LIGO aperture base would help, right? Yes. shrug |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Detection of gravitational waves
so, do you still believe in Pascal's absolute vacuum,
through which lightwaves are incapable of propogation? |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Detection of gravitational waves
On May 21, 2:03*am, Koobee Wublee wrote:
On May 20, 7:08 pm, Tom Roberts wrote: On 5/19/12 5/19/12 * 8:25 AM, hippolyte Lapoyat wrote: The collapse of *a star is supposed to create gravitational waves. Not really. The primary source of gravitational waves that the various detectors are seeking is the inspiral of a massive object into another. That is, as two massive objects orbit each other, they emit gravitational radiation, which represents a loss of energy in the local system (loosely defined), and they approach each other, with decreasing orbital period, until they collide.. Of one of the objects is a black hole, there is no collision, and the other object is simply engulfed. Really, Tom. *The mathematics of gravitational radiation can be interpreted in many different ways. *Of course, one is the quadruple moment conjecture. shrug When a star collapses, the angular momentum is conserved under Newtonian laws of physics. *When a binary system merging together into a single star, the angular momentum ought to be conserved as well. *Of course, the angular momentum should not be taken as conserved at any circumstances, but are you telling us, two quantities of angular momentums can be different such that one would produce gravitational radiation and another one would not? *shrug The collapse of a star is approximately spherically symmetric if it is not spinning, or approximately cylindrically symmetric if it is spinning. Sources with such symmetry emit no gravitational radiation in GR. You know what. *Mathematically, there is no difference between a collapsing star and a merging binary system. *So, so please explain exactly how one circumstance in angular momentum can be conserved while one would not. *shrug The strong acceleration of a mass would produce the same kind of waves. Can we compare the intensity of the waves produced by a rocket (space shuttle or Ariane) *with the waves coming from the sky? Man-made phenomena like that are VASTLY smaller than natural astronomical processes, by MANY orders of magnitude. The gravitational waves from any human-induced process are completely undetectable. This statement is assumed that gravitational waves have been detected somewhat. *Where? *shrug *Oh, building more energetic accelerators and longer LIGO aperture base would help, right? *Yes. *shrug Rotation of a star picks up speed as its volume gets smaller and smaller. Mass density relates to rotational speed. It in a way proves gravity,and inertia are equal. TreBert |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Gravitational Waves Recorded with GRB | David Thomson | Astronomy Misc | 14 | June 5th 08 03:25 PM |
Gravitational Wave Detection - Comments? | TeaTime | UK Astronomy | 9 | October 24th 06 10:28 PM |
Gravitational Waves | jonathan | Policy | 6 | November 9th 05 05:46 AM |
Spaceships should surf on gravitational waves | Ted Ratmark | Space Shuttle | 4 | September 17th 05 08:53 PM |
Gravitational waves discovered? | Luigi Caselli | Misc | 2 | November 2nd 04 10:32 PM |