Fwd: Viewpoint: The First Sounds of Merging Black Holes

It is not that Einstein couldn't predict the presence of stellar islands called galaxies that is funny, it is that he dumped this conception on Newton even though,being familiar with Newton's scheme along with so many others , Newton had a fairly straightforward view of the rest of the visible universe -

"And since these stars are liable to no sensible parallax from the
annual motion of the earth, they can have no force, because of their
immense distance, to produce any sensible effect in our system. Not to
mention that the fixed stars, every where promiscuously dispersed in
the heavens, by their contrary actions destroy their
mutual actions" Prop. LXX, Book I." Newton

This business of dumping 'gravitational waves' on Albert has the same pathological traits as Albert dumping on Newton and Newton on the original astronomers. Ultimately it is a disruptive scam by academics and for academics

"There are stars everywhere, so that the density of matter, although very variable in detail, is nevertheless on the average everywhere the same. In other words: However far we might travel through space, we should find everywhere an attenuated swarm of fixed stars of approximately the same kind and density.
This view is not in harmony with the theory of Newton. The latter theory rather requires that the universe should have a kind of centre in which the density of the stars is a maximum, and that as we proceed outwards from this centre the group-density of the stars should diminish, until finally, at great distances, it is succeeded by an infinite region of emptiness. The stellar universe ought to be a finite island in the infinite ocean of space." Einstein

On Thu, 11 Feb 2016 13:14:40 -0700, Chris L Peterson
wrote:
On Thu, 11 Feb 2016 20:25:14 +0100, Paul Schlyter
wrote:

So it's moster an engineering breakthrough. But why do so many
people
call these gravitational waves "sound"?

I would guess because there's a weak analogy between gravitational
waves and sound waves, because sound waves are a pretty accessible
concept to most people, and because the frequency of the
gravitational
waves detected by LIGO lies in the audio spectrum.

Are gravitational waves longitudal waves, like sound waves, which
cannot have polarisation? Or are they transversal waves, like EM
waves, which can and often do have polarisation?

On Friday, February 12, 2016 at 9:34:50 AM UTC, Paul Schlyter wrote:
On Thu, 11 Feb 2016 13:14:40 -0700, Chris L Peterson
wrote:
On Thu, 11 Feb 2016 20:25:14 +0100, Paul Schlyter
wrote:

So it's moster an engineering breakthrough. But why do so many
people
call these gravitational waves "sound"?

I would guess because there's a weak analogy between gravitational
waves and sound waves, because sound waves are a pretty accessible
concept to most people, and because the frequency of the
gravitational
waves detected by LIGO lies in the audio spectrum.

Are gravitational waves longitudal waves, like sound waves, which
cannot have polarisation? Or are they transversal waves, like EM
waves, which can and often do have polarisation?

Explaining 'gravitation waves' have all the intellectual substance as explaining how Santa Claus covers so much distance in one night. It is an invention inside the heads of theorists and this would be fine if it didn't disrupt the natural ability of the mind to access genuine astronomical insights and how to perceive astronomy as it was always practiced.


I saw how useful CME events are in exposing planetary traits by comparing Venus with the Earth and the electromagnetic signatures at play in daily and orbital dynamics -

http://inspirehep.net/record/792963/plots

The greater issue is the role the solar system's galactic orbital motion influences planetary orbits and judging from the Fomalhaut system it changes the principles where the planets are spending half their orbits going with the Sun around the galaxy and the other half travelling in the opposite direction. It shows up in that solar system's geometry -

http://www.astronoo.com/images/etoil...ubble-alma.jpg

This is for a different type of theorist, one who doesn't hide behind unobserved things but actually looks at what is in front of them.

On Thursday, February 11, 2016 at 7:18:12 PM UTC, oriel36 wrote:

Einstein never predicted 'gravitational waves'


Einstein, Albert, Naeherungsweise Integration der Feldgleichungen der Gravitation, 1916

http://einstein-annalen.mpiwg-berlin...ichte/BGG54UCY

(This paper contained an error which Einstein corrected in a follow up paper in 1918).

On Friday, February 12, 2016 at 11:26:54 AM UTC, wrote:
On Thursday, February 11, 2016 at 7:18:12 PM UTC, oriel36 wrote:

Einstein never predicted 'gravitational waves'


Einstein, Albert, Naeherungsweise Integration der Feldgleichungen der Gravitation, 1916

http://einstein-annalen.mpiwg-berlin...ichte/BGG54UCY

(This paper contained an error which Einstein corrected in a follow up paper in 1918).

Okay, now put it in context of his view of the universe, not the version you got yesterday but the actual hilarious perspective which forces a center of the Universe on Newton and removes the notion of stellar islands we now know as galaxies -

" If we ponder over the question as to how the universe, considered as a whole, is to be regarded, the first answer that suggests itself to us is surely this: As regards space (and time) the universe is infinite. There are stars everywhere, so that the density of matter, although very variable in detail, is nevertheless on the average everywhere the same. In other words: However far we might travel through space, we should find everywhere an attenuated swarm of fixed stars of approximately the same kind and density.
This view is not in harmony with the theory of Newton. The latter theory rather requires that the universe should have a kind of centre in which the density of the stars is a maximum, and that as we proceed outwards from this centre the group-density of the stars should diminish, until finally, at great distances, it is succeeded by an infinite region of emptiness. The stellar universe ought to be a finite island in the infinite ocean of space. 1
This conception is in itself not very satisfactory. It is still less satisfactory because it leads to the result that the light emitted by the stars and also individual stars of the stellar system are perpetually passing out into infinite space, never to return, and without ever again coming into interaction with other objects of nature. Such a finite material universe would be destined to become gradually but systematically impoverished.
In order to escape this dilemma, Seeliger suggested a modification of Newton's law, in which he assumes that for great distances the force of attraction between two masses diminishes more rapidly than would result from the inverse square law. In this way it is possible for the mean density of matter to be constant everywhere, even to infinity, without infinitely large gravitational fields being produced. We thus free ourselves from the distasteful conception that the material universe ought to possess something of the nature of centre." Einstein, 1920

http://www.bartleby.com/173/30.html

Nobody gets just how unintentionally funny that is, not just because stellar islands with galactic centers were discovered to exist after that was written but light going to waste, giving Newton a universal center and many more things.

I have dealt extensively with Newton's absolute/relative 'definitions' as he intended to use them, even if they represent an utter distortion of working astronomical principles, and they bear no resemblance to the treatment that allowed theorists to manufacture relativity the last century and its comical assertions about warped space,time travel,ect.

On Fri, 12 Feb 2016 10:34:43 +0100, Paul Schlyter
wrote:

Are gravitational waves longitudal waves, like sound waves, which
cannot have polarisation? Or are they transversal waves, like EM
waves, which can and often do have polarisation?

They are similar to EM. Gravitational waves show polarization- linear
or circular depending on the characteristics of their source.

On Thursday, 11 February 2016 14:25:18 UTC-5, Paul Schlyter wrote:
On Thu, 11 Feb 2016 10:11:58 -0700, Chris L Peterson
wrote:
On Thu, 11 Feb 2016 10:46:57 -0600, Sam Wormley

wrote:

Viewpoint: The First Sounds of Merging Black Holes -- PDF Version

http://physics.aps.org/featured-arti...evLett.116.061
102

It's an odd feeling- on the one hand, extremely exciting, but at the
same time completely expected and unsurprising.

So it's moster an engineering breakthrough. But why do so many people
call these gravitational waves "sound"?

Better question; how long would it take to notice a decline in the amplitude of the waves? 1 million years? 10? 100?

On Fri, 12 Feb 2016 15:03:58 -0800 (PST), RichA
wrote:

Better question; how long would it take to notice a decline in the amplitude of the waves? 1 million years? 10? 100?

The signal dropped below the level of detectability a few milliseconds
after the merger.

On 11/02/2016 19:25, Paul Schlyter wrote:
On Thu, 11 Feb 2016 10:11:58 -0700, Chris L Peterson
wrote:
On Thu, 11 Feb 2016 10:46:57 -0600, Sam Wormley

wrote:

Viewpoint: The First Sounds of Merging Black Holes -- PDF Version

http://physics.aps.org/featured-arti...evLett.116.061
102

It's an odd feeling- on the one hand, extremely exciting, but at the
same time completely expected and unsurprising.

So it's moster an engineering breakthrough. But why do so many people
call these gravitational waves "sound"?

Because it so happens that they are in the audible frequency range so
you can actually listen to them - a bit like pulsars in that respect.

If our ears were sensitive enough then gravitational waves would be
perceived as sound. The LIGO is in effect an extremely sensitive
microphone which is why they have to work so very hard to isolate it
from its noisy environment when looking for extraterrestrial signals.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

Paul Schlyter:
So it's moster an engineering breakthrough. But why do so many people
call these gravitational waves "sound"?

Martin Brown:
Because it so happens that they are in the audible frequency range so
you can actually listen to them - a bit like pulsars in that respect.

If our ears were sensitive enough then gravitational waves would be
perceived as sound. The LIGO is in effect an extremely sensitive
microphone which is why they have to work so very hard to isolate it
from its noisy environment when looking for extraterrestrial signals.

Nicely put. Too bad they're not a wee bit louder for the sake of
physics, good that they are not audible to the human ear! Kind of like
most of the nebulae in the night sky; if they were considerably
brighter they would be a real nuisance (Rosette nearly three times the
angular diameter of the Moon).

--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm