A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

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

Gravitational Waves Recorded with GRB



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old June 3rd 08, 01:43 AM posted to sci.astro
David Thomson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8
Default Gravitational Waves Recorded with GRB

This past weekend the magnetic scalar wave detector detected a clear
gravitational wave signal with its associated gamma ray burst. I have
updated the Magnetic Scalar Wave page and also posted the raw data
online.

http://www.16pi2.com/magnetic_scalar_waves.htm

Dave
  #2  
Old June 3rd 08, 03:16 AM posted to sci.astro
N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)[_210_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1
Default Gravitational Waves Recorded with GRB

Dear David Thomson:

"David Thomson" wrote in message
...
This past weekend the magnetic scalar wave detector
detected a clear gravitational wave signal with its
associated gamma ray burst.


Gravitational waves =/= magnetic fields
Gamma radiation ionizes gas, and Earth's magnetic field is
thereby locally enhanced.

So you detected gamma radiation two different ways.

Congratulations.

David A. Smith


  #3  
Old June 3rd 08, 01:12 PM posted to sci.astro
David Thomson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8
Default Gravitational Waves Recorded with GRB

On Jun 2, 9:16*pm, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)"
wrote:
Dear David Thomson:

"David Thomson" wrote in message

...

This past weekend the magnetic scalar wave detector
detected a clear gravitational wave signal with its
associated gamma ray burst.


Gravitational waves =/= magnetic fields
Gamma radiation ionizes gas, and Earth's magnetic field is
thereby locally enhanced.

So you detected gamma radiation two different ways.

Congratulations.


Thanks, However, gravitational waves ripple not only space-time, but
matter, too. When the gravity wave passes through a magnet, it causes
a change of magnetic flux density. When properly setup, changes in
magnetic flux density can record the gravitational waves.

I did seem to pick up a minor signal for the gamma rays, which
surprised me. You may be right on the mechanism. I'll see what
happens with future detections.

Dave
  #4  
Old June 3rd 08, 02:08 PM posted to sci.astro
N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)[_211_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1
Default Gravitational Waves Recorded with GRB

Dear David Thomson:

"David Thomson" wrote in message
...
On Jun 2, 9:16 pm, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)"
wrote:
"David Thomson" wrote in message

...

This past weekend the magnetic scalar wave detector
detected a clear gravitational wave signal with its
associated gamma ray burst.


Gravitational waves =/= magnetic fields
Gamma radiation ionizes gas, and Earth's magnetic
field is thereby locally enhanced.


So you detected gamma radiation two different ways.


Congratulations.


Thanks, However, gravitational waves ripple not
only space-time, but matter, too.


.... and when "rippled" together ...

When the gravity wave passes through a
magnet, it causes a change of magnetic
flux density.


.... it negates your suspected action, for exactly that reason.

When properly setup, changes in magnetic
flux density can record the gravitational waves.


No.

I did seem to pick up a minor signal for
the gamma rays, which surprised me. You
may be right on the mechanism. I'll see what
happens with future detections.


The problem with a "bulldozer" plowing through your apparatus, is
that it tends to generate unintended signals.

Gravitational waves are "angular momentum" being propagated
through the Universe. You need not look for a flux, but a
torsion...

David A. Smith


  #5  
Old June 3rd 08, 02:40 PM posted to sci.astro
David Thomson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8
Default Gravitational Waves Recorded with GRB

On Jun 3, 8:08*am, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)"
wrote:
Congratulations.

Thanks, *However, gravitational waves ripple not
only space-time, but matter, too.


... and when "rippled" together ...

When the gravity wave passes through a
magnet, it causes a change of magnetic
flux density.


... it negates your suspected action, for exactly that reason.


That would be the case with a laser interferometer, because the entire
experiment is setup and observed from a four-dimensional, space-time
perspective. The Aether, which manifests as magnetic fields (among
other things), exists in a five-dimensional, space-resonance
environment. Magnetic flux is observable from our four-dimensional
space-time perspective, yet it is also the medium carrying the
gravitational wave.

If a stick man shoots a beam of light across a sheet of paper to
another stick man, neither can use the beam of light to detect when
the paper is folded or curved. They have no view of a three
dimensional space at all. However, if someone from three dimensional
space projected a cone of light from outside the paper, the stick men
could see the intersection of the light cone and paper, and could tell
from changes in that intersection whether the paper was being bent, or
not.

Gravitational waves are that outside "light source" for our four-
dimensional world. Magnetic flux density is the intersection where
the outside gravitational waves merge with our four dimensional space-
time. It is true that magnetic flux density changes within our four-
dimensional perspective, but it is also true that magnetic flux
density changes due to the greater five-dimensional perspective.

When properly setup, changes in magnetic
flux density can record the gravitational waves.


No.


What do you mean, "no?" I have already performed the experiment with
positive results!

I did seem to pick up a minor signal for
the gamma rays, which surprised me. *You
may be right on the mechanism. *I'll see what
happens with future detections.


The problem with a "bulldozer" plowing through your apparatus, is
that it tends to generate unintended signals.


No signal is unintended. If something produces a signal, it is
intended. This detector picks up signals at all scales of existence,
from intergalactic to switching on a light near the detector. It also
picks up lightning strikes, military submarine communications, HAARP
experiments, and apparently even earthquakes. Theoretically, it
should be possible to filter out local signals by building three or
more sensors and placing them a great distance apart. The further
apart the sensors are, the greater area of the locality that can be
filtered out. Only the common signals would be recorded.

Gravitational waves are "angular momentum" being propagated
through the Universe. *You need not look for a flux, but a
torsion...


I have the physics that demonstrates angular momentum is exactly
orthogonal to magnetism. That is why magnetism can be used to
determine subatomic particle angular momentum. Mechanical waves of
the Aether propagate coincident with magnetic pulses of the Aether.

Dave
  #6  
Old June 3rd 08, 03:38 PM posted to sci.astro
dlzc
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,426
Default Gravitational Waves Recorded with GRB

Dear David Thomson:

On Jun 3, 6:40*am, David Thomson wrote:
On Jun 3, 8:08*am, "N:dlzcD:aol T:com \(dlzc\)"
wrote:

Congratulations.
Thanks, *However, gravitational waves ripple not
only space-time, but matter, too.


... and when "rippled" together ...


When the gravity wave passes through a
magnet, it causes a change of magnetic
flux density.


... it negates your suspected action, for
exactly that reason.


That would be the case with a laser
interferometer, because the entire experiment
is setup and observed from a four-dimensional,
space-time perspective.


Light is EM fields.

*The Aether, which manifests as magnetic
fields (among other things), exists in a
five-dimensional, space-resonance
environment. *Magnetic flux is observable from
our four-dimensional space-time perspective,
yet it is also the medium carrying the
gravitational wave.


And light. So you cannot have a different behavior for light than you
have for magnetism (which also derives from light).

...
When properly setup, changes in magnetic
flux density can record the gravitational waves.


No.


What do you mean, "no?" *I have already
performed the experiment with positive results!


No, you performed the experiment and recorded a result that you cannot
show is not due to local ionization of matter. Did you even record
the orientation of the "upset" in the magnetic field?

...
Gravitational waves are "angular momentum"
being propagated through the Universe. *You
need not look for a flux, but a torsion...


I have the physics that demonstrates angular
momentum is exactly orthogonal to magnetism.
*That is why magnetism can be used to
determine subatomic particle angular momentum.
*Mechanical waves of the Aether propagate
coincident with magnetic pulses of the Aether.


So does ionization.

David A. Smith
  #7  
Old June 3rd 08, 04:54 PM posted to sci.astro
David Thomson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8
Default Gravitational Waves Recorded with GRB

On Jun 3, 9:38*am, dlzc wrote:
That would be the case with a laser
interferometer, because the entire experiment
is setup and observed from a four-dimensional,
space-time perspective.


Light is EM fields.


Not quite, light is a flow of photons. Light is to photons as a river
is to water molecules. A photon is the mechanical structure of the
Aether. A photon cannot exist without also influencing the magnetic
structure of the Aether, because mechanical and magnetic structures of
the Aether are locked together. They are two different views of the
same thing.

*The Aether, which manifests as magnetic
fields (among other things), exists in a
five-dimensional, space-resonance
environment. *Magnetic flux is observable from
our four-dimensional space-time perspective,
yet it is also the medium carrying the
gravitational wave.


And light. *So you cannot have a different behavior for light than you
have for magnetism (which also derives from light).


Magnetism does not derive from light. Magnetism exists as a specific
condition of the Aether, which is orthogonal to the mechanical
structure (angular momentum). And again, light is not a quantum
thing, it is the flow of quantum photons. Yes, a magnetic field
coincides with light, but they are two distinct realities. Also, the
magnetic field perspective is dozens of orders of magnitude stronger
than the light perspective.

What do you mean, "no?" *I have already
performed the experiment with positive results!


No, you performed the experiment and recorded a result that you cannot
show is not due to local ionization of matter. *Did you even record
the orientation of the "upset" in the magnetic field?


I'm measuring scalar waves, they have no specific orientation except
direction. They are just like tsunamis in the ocean, P waves in the
Earth, and sound waves in a room. And yes, I can show the result is
not due to ionization of local matter. As I have pointed out with
regard to the construction of the detector, it is completely encased
in a grounded Faraday cage of solid, heavy aluminum.

I have the physics that demonstrates angular
momentum is exactly orthogonal to magnetism.
*That is why magnetism can be used to
determine subatomic particle angular momentum.
*Mechanical waves of the Aether propagate
coincident with magnetic pulses of the Aether.


So does ionization.


Yes, that is true. However, ionized particles cannot carry their
radiation through grounded, solid aluminum (at least not at the levels
we are talking about). Also, the ionization from the gamma rays has
nothing to do with the gravitational waves. The gravitational waves
are occurring nearly 24 hours before the gamma ray burst arrives.
Light is the flow of photons, which are limited to the speed of
light. The gravitational waves are tsunamis in the Aether fabric,
which can travel faster than the speed of light (and also slower).
The fact that the gravity waves are disconnected from the photons of
the gamma ray burst by dozens of hours clearly shows the magnetic
component is separate and independent from the photon stream.

Dave
  #8  
Old June 3rd 08, 10:27 PM posted to sci.astro
dlzc
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,426
Default Gravitational Waves Recorded with GRB

Dear David Thomson:

On Jun 3, 8:54*am, David Thomson wrote:
On Jun 3, 9:38*am, dlzc wrote:

...
I have the physics that demonstrates angular
momentum is exactly orthogonal to magnetism.
*That is why magnetism can be used to
determine subatomic particle angular momentum.
*Mechanical waves of the Aether propagate
coincident with magnetic pulses of the Aether.


So does ionization.


Yes, that is true. *However, ionized particles
cannot carry their radiation through grounded,
solid aluminum (at least not at the levels we are
talking about).


I had aluminum carriers that were nearly entirely transparent to the
1.1 and 1.3 MeV gamma radiation of Co-60. Additionally, there was
quite a bit of "spallation" products scattered from the aluminum,
allowing "increased ionization" near the aluminium surface.

I worked on drive systems for conveyors, that used "linear induction
motors" to induce electrical currents in aluminum plates. No wires
touched the plates, and hundreds to thousands of amps were induced.
All it needs is

Muons induce very similar reactions in metals (and anything else).

Geiger Mueller tubes (and their ilk) detect radiation passing through
various intervening materials, identifiying the type of radiation
based on what is still present.

Unless you have a large evacuated space around your detector, you are
simply fooling yourself.

*Also, the ionization from the gamma rays has
nothing to do with the gravitational waves.


But can have a lot to do with detection.

*The gravitational waves are occurring nearly 24
hours before the gamma ray burst arrives.


So a single detection is simply noise and random chance. Disprove
that.

Light is the flow of photons, which are limited
to the speed of light.


One would hope. But photons can disguise themselves as
electromagnetic fields, completely describable by wave equations, you
cannot discount that photons have some EM nature to them.

*The gravitational waves are tsunamis in the
Aether fabric, which can travel faster than the
speed of light (and also slower).


Aether is the medium of propagation of light. Or have you completely
redefined aether for your own evil purposes?

The fact that the gravity waves are disconnected
from the photons of the gamma ray burst by
dozens of hours clearly shows the magnetic
component is separate and independent from
the photon stream.


No such proof, just random noise and someone that *wants* there to
have been a detection. Disprove that.

Not being argumentative, just asking for you to have a scientific mind
here.

David A. Smith
  #9  
Old June 4th 08, 03:35 AM posted to sci.astro
David Thomson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8
Default Gravitational Waves Recorded with GRB

On Jun 3, 4:27*pm, dlzc wrote:
Not being argumentative, just asking for you to have a scientific mind
here.


I think I have provided a scientific mind by developing a quantified
Aether theory and performing actual experiments. I don't mind
questions, but is it too much to ask for you to look at the data and
listen to my answers?

Yes, that is true. *However, ionized particles
cannot carry their radiation through grounded,
solid aluminum (at least not at the levels we are
talking about).


I had aluminum carriers that were nearly entirely transparent to the
1.1 and 1.3 MeV gamma radiation of Co-60. *Additionally, there was
quite a bit of "spallation" products scattered from the aluminum,
allowing "increased ionization" near the aluminium surface.

I worked on drive systems for conveyors, that used "linear induction
motors" to induce electrical currents in aluminum plates. *No wires
touched the plates, and hundreds to thousands of amps were induced.
All it needs is

Muons induce very similar reactions in metals (and anything else).

Geiger Mueller tubes (and their ilk) detect radiation passing through
various intervening materials, identifiying the type of radiation
based on what is still present.

Unless you have a large evacuated space around your detector, you are
simply fooling yourself.


Using that logic, no detector is reliable. Gamma and cosmic rays are
constantly bombarding everything, even vacuum tubes. I have a
scintillator encased in about 3" of lead all around it and it still
picks up thousands of cps. But you made me curious tonight. I
checked for E fields near the detector, and there were none. Then I
checked for EMR and was surprised. The power supply must have blown a
transistor or something as the power output was down a half volt.
Also, it was putting out EMR to five feet. The meter's low threshhold
is .1 mW/cm^2. The power supply was only about a foot from the
sensor, so I moved it downstairs to the room below and replaced it
with a fresh power supply. Checking the power supply after setup
shows that no EMR from the power supply is reaching the sensor at this
time.

Other than removing an intense buzz from the signal, the device works
as it did before. There is a lightning storm about seventy miles away
and I'm picking up lightning strike signals loud and clear. I'm also
picking up a technology signal (probably related to the military
submarine communications system).

*Also, the ionization from the gamma rays has
nothing to do with the gravitational waves.


But can have a lot to do with detection.


It can't have anything to do with the gravitational signals since they
occur long before the gamma ray bursts reach the earth.

*The gravitational waves are occurring nearly 24
hours before the gamma ray burst arrives.


So a single detection is simply noise and random chance. *Disprove
that.


The gravitational wave signals are not subjective little blips in the
system, they are completely saturating signals. Take a look at the
graph I posted on the web page, it's under the June 2 follow up
entry. There is no chance a gravitational wave is a random signal.

That does not mean there aren't gravitational waves without GRBs. It
appears the Milky Way galaxy puts out its own gravitational waves, and
they don't follow the same pattern as for supernovae. I'll bet when
the Sun gets active again, I'll see gravitational waves associated
with strong CMEs, but that is speculation.

Light is the flow of photons, which are limited
to the speed of light.


One would hope. *But photons can disguise themselves as
electromagnetic fields, completely describable by wave equations, you
cannot discount that photons have some EM nature to them.


I agree that photons are fully quantifiable with wave equations. And
I agree that photons will correspond with electromagnetic radiation.
In the Aether Physics Model, the Aether unit is also equal to a photon
per electromagnetic charge. In order for photons to exist, they must
exist in connection with electromagnetic charge, much like potential
and current can only exist in conjunction with resistance.

*The gravitational waves are tsunamis in the
Aether fabric, which can travel faster than the
speed of light (and also slower).


Aether is the medium of propagation of light. *Or have you completely
redefined aether for your own evil purposes?


Light does not propagate, any more than a river flows. Water flows as
a river, photons flow as light. Aether is the medium in which photons
flow, yes. But the Aether medium can itself flow. That is what frame
dragging is all about. It is also why the MMX showed a flowing Aether
entrained behind the Earth. The fact that magnetic fields can move
(rotating magnetic fields) is further evidence the Aether is capable
of movement. Further, the Aether is capable of propagating
longitudinal waves, just like water propogates a tsunami through the
ocean. The longitudinal waves of Aether are not caused by photons,
they are caused by the Aether units, themselves. A gravitational wave
and a magnetic pulse are the same thing but seen from two different
views. A gravitational wave and a magnetic pulse are longitudinal
waves within the Aether medium, which do not involve photons.

The fact that the gravity waves are disconnected
from the photons of the gamma ray burst by
dozens of hours clearly shows the magnetic
component is separate and independent from
the photon stream.


No such proof, just random noise and someone that *wants* there to
have been a detection. *Disprove that.


I did. You need to look at the data. There is no way the magnetic
pulses detected in this sensor are random noise.

Right now, the Sun is extremely quiet. When it gets a little more
energetic and the long wave solar x-ray irradiance starts showing on
the graph, then the gravitational waves that I detect are nearly
exactly timed to a similar burst of solar x-rays.

I appreciate your questions. I'll gladly answer them. Please be
courteous and give my responses adequate attention and comment on
them. After looking at the data, do you agree or disagree that the
data I provide is not just random noise?

Dave
  #10  
Old June 4th 08, 04:42 AM posted to sci.astro
N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)[_215_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1
Default Gravitational Waves Recorded with GRB

Dear David Thomson:

"David Thomson" wrote in message
...
On Jun 3, 4:27 pm, dlzc wrote:
Not being argumentative, just asking for you
to have a scientific mind here.


I think I have provided a scientific mind by
developing a quantified Aether theory and
performing actual experiments.


Did you make quantitative predictions, and seek to verify them?
Or did you just hook it up and turn it on?

I don't mind questions, but is it too much to
ask for you to look at the data and listen to
my answers?


All I've got here is *your* answers. You assume your conclusion,
and everything you see is "proof of magnetic 5D aether". You are
supposed to *disprove*.

Yes, that is true. However, ionized particles
cannot carry their radiation through grounded,
solid aluminum (at least not at the levels we
are talking about).


I had aluminum carriers that were nearly
entirely transparent to the 1.1 and 1.3 MeV
gamma radiation of Co-60. Additionally, there
was quite a bit of "spallation" products
scattered from the aluminum, allowing
"increased ionization" near the aluminium
surface.


I worked on drive systems for conveyors,
that used "linear induction motors" to induce
electrical currents in aluminum plates. No
wires touched the plates, and hundreds to
thousands of amps were induced.
All it needs is


Muons induce very similar reactions in metals
(and anything else).


Geiger Mueller tubes (and their ilk) detect
radiation passing through various intervening
materials, identifiying the type of radiation
based on what is still present.


Unless you have a large evacuated space
around your detector, you are simply fooling
yourself.


Using that logic, no detector is reliable.


But that is all that Nature gives us. But much can be done with
even that.

Gamma and cosmic rays are constantly
bombarding everything, even vacuum tubes.
I have a scintillator encased in about 3" of
lead all around it and it still picks up thousands
of cps.


So how do you know which gamma detection corresponded to your
"gravity wave" of ~24 hours before?

But you made me curious tonight. I checked
for E fields near the detector, and there were
none.


What detector impedance do you have? What is the response time?

Then I checked for EMR and was surprised.
The power supply must have blown a
transistor or something as the power output
was down a half volt. Also, it was putting
out EMR to five feet. The meter's low
threshhold is .1 mW/cm^2. The power supply
was only about a foot from the sensor, so I
moved it downstairs to the room below and
replaced it with a fresh power supply.
Checking the power supply after setup
shows that no EMR from the power supply is
reaching the sensor at this time.


Why not leave it downstairs, and feed the power up shielded wire?
More to the point, are you using a switcher or a linear power
supply? For a quickie test, can you construct a bank of
batteries and run for a few minutes, just to quanitfy the effect
of an external power source?

Other than removing an intense buzz from the
signal, the device works as it did before. There
is a lightning storm about seventy miles away
and I'm picking up lightning strike signals loud
and clear. I'm also picking up a technology
signal (probably related to the military
submarine communications system).


Do you have a cell phone, or wireless phones in the house? They
usually impinge on sensitive stuff for quite a ways.

Also, the ionization from the gamma rays has
nothing to do with the gravitational waves.


But can have a lot to do with detection.


It can't have anything to do with the gravitational
signals since they occur long before the gamma
ray bursts reach the earth.


1) you cannot discount ionization, either "today" or "about 24
hours ago".
2) you have not even attempted to establish polarity on the
"magnetism" you have detected, to see if it has a northwards
bias.
3) you assume your conclusion, so everything you see is
"gravitational waves".

The gravitational waves are occurring nearly 24
hours before the gamma ray burst arrives.


So a single detection is simply noise and random
chance. Disprove that.


The gravitational wave signals are not subjective
little blips in the system, they are completely
saturating signals. Take a look at the graph I
posted on the web page, it's under the June 2
follow up entry. There is no chance a gravitational
wave is a random signal.


There is a big chance your detector "saturated" for other
reasons. You have not even attempted the most basic of analyses.

That does not mean there aren't gravitational waves
without GRBs. It appears the Milky Way galaxy
puts out its own gravitational waves, and they don't
follow the same pattern as for supernovae. I'll bet
when the Sun gets active again, I'll see gravitational
waves associated with strong CMEs, but that is
speculation.


Oh no, you will imagine all sorts of stuff, when the CME induces
noise in the AC lines.

Light is the flow of photons, which are limited
to the speed of light.


One would hope. But photons can disguise
themselves as electromagnetic fields, completely
describable by wave equations, you cannot
discount that photons have some EM nature to
them.


I agree that photons are fully quantifiable with wave
equations. And I agree that photons will correspond
with electromagnetic radiation. In the Aether
Physics Model, the Aether unit is also equal to a
photon per electromagnetic charge. In order for
photons to exist, they must exist in connection
with electromagnetic charge, much like potential
and current can only exist in conjunction with
resistance.


Be careful, current can exist without potential, just as
potential can exist without current.

The gravitational waves are tsunamis in the
Aether fabric, which can travel faster than the
speed of light (and also slower).


Aether is the medium of propagation of light. Or
have you completely redefined aether for your
own evil purposes?


Light does not propagate, any more than a river
flows. Water flows as a river, photons flow as
light. Aether is the medium in which photons
flow, yes. But the Aether medium can itself
flow. That is what frame dragging is all about.


Better not be. A dragged aether has been disproven by
experiment. Better look to your similes.

It is also why the MMX showed a flowing Aether
entrained behind the Earth.


It has not shown any such thing. It only *disproved* an aether
through which light propagates, but matter not.

The fact that magnetic fields can move (rotating
magnetic fields) is further evidence the Aether is
capable of movement.


.... when you assume your conclusion.

Further, the Aether is capable of propagating
longitudinal waves, just like water propogates
a tsunami through the ocean. The longitudinal
waves of Aether are not caused by photons,
they are caused by the Aether units, themselves.


Yet you agree that photons "flow through" the aether, but are not
in any way affected by your tsunami?

A gravitational wave and a magnetic pulse are
the same thing but seen from two different
views. A gravitational wave and a magnetic
pulse are longitudinal waves within the Aether
medium, which do not involve photons.


So you assert...

The fact that the gravity waves are disconnected
from the photons of the gamma ray burst by
dozens of hours clearly shows the magnetic
component is separate and independent from
the photon stream.


No such proof, just random noise and someone
that *wants* there to have been a detection.
Disprove that.


I did. You need to look at the data. There is no
way the magnetic pulses detected in this sensor
are random noise.


Who said this:
QUOTE
Then I checked for EMR and was surprised.
The power supply must have blown a
transistor or something as the power output
was down a half volt. Also, it was putting
out EMR to five feet.

END QUOTE

What was the correlation between your "absolutely, positively a
gravitational wave detection" and the failed power supply? For
that matter, have you tried inducing a magnetic field in other
ways, to see how your detector behaves?

Right now, the Sun is extremely quiet. When
it gets a little more energetic and the long
wave solar x-ray irradiance starts showing on
the graph, then the gravitational waves that I
detect are nearly exactly timed to a similar
burst of solar x-rays.


I appreciate your questions. I'll gladly answer
them. Please be courteous and give my
responses adequate attention and comment on
them. After looking at the data, do you agree or
disagree that the data I provide is not just random
noise?


I can't tell. You bluster about this "theory", then you start
measuring... and just assume that Nature is only showing you what
you want to see. She really doesn't work like that.

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Louis_Pasteur
.... chance only favors the prepared mind.

Find out what orientation your "magnetic detector" responds to.
Calibrate it to some sort of magnetic field intensity. Assure
yourself that you are not reading only "ionization boosted
M-field" from Earth's own magnetic field. Do you know what a
Faraday cage is? How about Helmholtz coils?

Aluminum (nor lead) does neither job well.

No response required.

David A. Smith


 




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
Gravitational Waves jonathan Policy 6 November 9th 05 06:46 AM
Spaceships should surf on gravitational waves Ted Ratmark Space Shuttle 4 September 17th 05 08:53 PM
Einstein@Home: Search for Gravitational Waves Davoud Amateur Astronomy 6 February 25th 05 07:20 PM
Gravitational waves discovered? Luigi Caselli Misc 2 November 2nd 04 11:32 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:54 PM.


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.